J.B., Plaintiff, v. KILLINGLY BOARD OF EDUCATION No. 3:97 CV 1900(GLG).

FACTS: In grammar school, J.B. received special education from the Killingly Board of Education in a local public school by taking his academic subjects in self-contained classrooms and some regular education classes.

Within the past twelve years, J.B. has been identified as language and learning disabled. After being charged with fourth degree sexual assault of several young boys in early 1991, J.B. was identified as a sex offender due to the pedophiliac nature of the offense.

On July 3, 1991 psychiatric evaluation diagnosed J.B. with "conduct, disorder, socialized, aggressive" and "mixed specific developmental disorder."

In 1993, J.B. was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and multiple personality disorder.

In April 1991, following the sexual assault charges, DCF placed J .B. at Harmony Hill, a residential treatment facility. All parties agree that his placement at Harmony Hill was for non-educational reasons.
On May 15, 1991, J.B.’s team agreed that Killingly should pay for J.B.'s special education during his placement at Harmony Hill

On July 3, 1991, a psychiatric evaluation recommended providing J.B. with individual counseling, a psychiatric residential placement, and a special education program.

In August 1991, J.B. was receiving individual psychotherapy and was participating in family therapy sessions.

At a team meeting on June 7, 1993, J.B. was found to require a "residential setting” to better meet his needs academically and behaviorally. J.B. remained at Harmony Hill, however, for non-educational reasons due to the extension of his delinquency petition. Throughout his residence at Harmony Hill, J.B. continued to receive individual and family therapy.

In July 1994, J.B.'s team supported the decision to move him to a more restrictive residential setting.

Later in 1994, J.B.'s treatment team recommended moving J.B. to a more restrictive hospital setting to address J.B.'s multiple personality disorder diagnosis.

On May 31, 1995, J.B. was transferred to High meadows, which is a residential treatment program.

In June 1995, J.B. graduated from high school. Therefore, J.B. was no longer qualified to receive special education services, but gave him the option of continuing to attend the High Meadows School, which he elected to do.

In March 1996, J.B.’s team determined that J.B. did not require a twenty-four hour residential setting for educational reasons. It also discontinued J.B.'s identification as learning disabled because J.B.'s "classroom functioning appeared to be commensurate with his intellectual ability."

On March 15, 1996, J.B. requested an impartial due process hearing to review his special education program and his current educational placement

On July 24, 1997, the Hearing Officer concluded that J.B. does not require a residential placement to benefit from special education. The Hearing Officer further concluded that the scope of special education and related/medical services does not include the acquisition of socialization or community living skills in a residential treatment program because no evidence indicated that J.B.'s emotional and educational problems were intertwined. The Hearing Officer also stated that because these services were intended to treat J.B.'s pedophilia, they were not related/medical services under IDEA. The Hearing officer noted that federal law requires the state educational agency to implement interagency agreements which delineate the various agencies' responsibilities for providing services to disabled children Finally, the Hearing Officer found that J.B. is entitled to up to two years compensatory education from Killingly due, to the inadequate transition services provided to him. After the Hearing officer's final decision, J.B. appealed to this Court for a review of his special education program and his entitlement to a community-based residential placement.

ISSUE: Is J.B. entitled to instruction in the acquisition of community and daily living skills through a treatment facility program? If so, who is responsible for the costs?

HOLDING: This Court finds that J.B. is entitled to instruction in the acquisition of community and daily living skills because these skills fall within the scope of special education. Killingly and DCF are found to be responsible for the costs of J.B.’s treatment facility and will be able to seek reimbursement for some or all of these costs once the issue of the agencies' financial responsibilities is decided.

REASONING: Congress enacted the IDEA to ensure access for all disabled children to a free appropriate public education that "emphasizes special education and related/medical services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living." According to the Supreme Court, the term "free appropriate public education" means "educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child 'to benefit' from the instruction." The federal regulations implementing the IDEA provide that each responsible public agency "shall ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services." This continuum includes instruction in special schools, hospitals. If, however, disabled children require separate educational instruction in private. The regulations further specify that a disabled child, where appropriate, may be placed in a public or private residential treatment program in order to receive special education and related services. When counseling and psychological services would allow a disabled child to benefit from special education, they are considered related services, and not excludable medical services, to be provided at no cost to the child's parents or guardian.