I. Introduction

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which determined that respondent (the district) failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2025-26 school year and failed to award the parent all of her requested relief. The appeal must be dismissed.

II. Overview—Administrative Procedures

When a student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (IEP), which is delegated to a local Committee on Special Education (CSE) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, a school psychologist, and a district representative (Educ. Law § 4402; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A]-[B]; 34 CFR 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4[d][2]). If disputes occur between parents and school districts, incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present State complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing (20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415[e]-[f]; Educ. Law § 4404[1]; 34 CFR 300.151-300.152, 300.506, 300.511; 8 NYCRR 200.5[h]-[l]).

New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student" (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6]-[7]; 34 CFR 300.503[a][1]-[2], 300.507[a][1]). First, after an opportunity to engage in a resolution process, the parties appear at an impartial hearing conducted at the local level before an IHO (Educ. Law § 4404[1][a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j]). An IHO typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding  (20  U.S.C.  §  1415[f][2][A],  [h][1]-[3];  34  CFR  300.512[a][1]-[4];  8  NYCRR 200.5[j][3][v], [vii], [xii]). The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than 45 days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process (34 CFR 300.510[b][2], [c], 300.515[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]). A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]). The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed (Educ. Law § 4404[1]).

A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may subsequently appeal to a State Review Officer (SRO) (Educ. Law § 4404[2]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[g][1]; 34 CFR 300.514[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k]). The appealing party or parties must identify the findings, conclusions, and orders of the IHO with which they disagree and indicate the relief that they would like the SRO to grant (8 NYCRR 279.4). The opposing party is entitled to respond to an appeal or cross-appeal in an answer (8 NYCRR 279.5). The SRO conducts an impartial review of the IHO's findings, conclusions, and decision and is required to examine the entire hearing record; ensure that the procedures at the hearing were consistent with the requirements of due process; seek additional evidence if necessary; and render an independent decision based upon the hearing record (34 CFR 300.514[b][2]; 8 NYCRR 279.12[a]). The SRO must ensure that a final decision is reached in the review and that a copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties not later than 30 days after the receipt of a request for a review, except that a party may seek a specific extension of time of the 30-day timeline, which the SRO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[b], [c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k][2]).

III. Facts and Procedural History

Given the dismissal of this appeal on procedural grounds, a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of the matter is not necessary. Briefly, on December 10, 2024, a Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) reconvened, following an August 19, 2024 CPSE meeting, to develop an IEP for the student (IHO Ex. I at p. 1).^{1, 2} The December 2024 IEP indicated that the student had been found eligible for special education and related services as a preschool student with a disability (id.). The December 2024 CPSE recommended that the student receive 9 hours per week of 1:1 direct special education itinerant teacher (SEIT) services to be delivered in 30- minute sessions, two 30-minute sessions per week of speech-language therapy in a group of two, one 30-minute session per week of individual speech-language therapy, two 30-minute sessions per week of occupational therapy (OT) in a group of two, three 30-minute sessions per week of physical therapy (PT) in a group of two, one 30-minute session per quarter of parent counseling and training in a group, along with the services of an individual health paraprofessional at a duration of 360 minutes and a frequency of five days per week (id. at pp. 1, 16).

On May 27, 2025, a CPSE convened for a reevaluation of the student and developed an IEP for the 12-month 2025-26 school year (Parent Ex. B at pp. 1, 15-16). The May 2025 CPSE recommended 12-month services to be implemented on July 1, 2025, consisting of nine 60-minute sessions per week of individual SEIT services, two 30-minute sessions per week of individual speech-language therapy, one 30-minute session of speech-language therapy in a group of two, two 30-minute sessions per week of OT in a group of two, three 30-minute sessions per week of PT in a group of two, four 30-minute sessions per year of parent counseling and training in a group, and daily, full-time individual health paraprofessional services (id. at pp. 17-19).³ For the 10- month 2025-26 school year, beginning September 1, 2025, the May 2025 CPSE recommended that the student attend a full day special class integrated setting five days per week, four 30-minute sessions per year of parent counseling and training in a group, two 30-minute sessions per week of OT in a group of two, two 30-minute sessions per week of individual speech-language therapy, one 30-minute session per week of speech-language therapy in a group of two, three 30-minute sessions per week of PT in a group of two, along with the services of a full-time, daily individual health paraprofessional for "[o]ther [h]ealth [n]eeds (id. at pp. 15-16). The May 2025 IEP also included an unspecified recommendation for special transportation (id. at p. 20).

In a due process complaint notice dated July 8, 2025, and filed on July 14, 2025, the parent alleged that the "sudden removal or replacement of a critical service provider-especially during a transition period-could result in a denial of FAPE" and that the district "ha[d] the authority and obligation to issue a" related services authorization (RSA) to maintain necessary services that were part of a student's IEP or were "otherwise essential to ensuring educational access" (Parent Ex. A at p. 2). Specifically, the parent asserted that the student was "transitioning to a new school building, new classroom, and w[ould] be with a completely unfamiliar team of teachers, therapists, and peers" (id. at p. 1). The parent contended that the "impending transition represent[ed] a significant and potentially traumatic disruption and w[ould] affect her ability to receive meaningful educational benefit" (id.). The parent argued that "[t]he only appropriate way for th[e] transition to be made tolerable for [the student] would be to give her some sort of 'sameness' and continuity" by permitting the student's then-current paraprofessional "to remain with her [at the new school] to provide the continuity, emotional security, and behavioral support that she so clearly require[d]" (id.). As relief, the parent requested an RSA "permitting continued support by [the student]'s current 1:1 paraprofessional for the 2025-26 school year" and "[r]ecognition that th[e] paraprofessional [wa]s necessary to meet the student's emotional, behavioral, and communication needs" and that "[i]ncorporation of th[e] support [must be included] in any updated IEP … to ensure consistency of services and prevent regression"(id. at p. 2).

After a prehearing conference held on August 13, 2025, the parties convened for an impartial hearing on September 5, 2025, before an IHO from the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) (Tr. pp. 1-107).⁴

In a decision dated September 10, 2025, the IHO found that the district "did not present any arguments, evidence, witnesses, or information of any kind to explain how the district provided [the s]tudent with a FAPE" (IHO Decision at p. 7). The IHO further found that the parent's testimony "noting the intense challenges that [the s]tudent had during the first day of school and the lack of support the district appear[ed] to have provided her, even after assuring [the] parent that support would be provided, further demonstrate[d] that the [district] failed to provide [the s]tudent with a FAPE for the school year at issue" (id.). The IHO determined that "[g]iven the absence of any arguments, evidence, or other information from the district explaining how … [it] provided [the s]tudent with a FAPE … the [district] has failed to meet its burden in showing that the district provided [the s]tudent with a FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year" (id.).

Next, the IHO addressed the parent's request for "compensatory services" (IHO Decision at p. 8). The IHO found that the parent's request that the district be required to implement the student's paraprofessional services for the 2025-26 school year using the same provider who had worked with the student during the 2024-25 school year " would go beyond the standards set by the IDEA" (id. at p. 9). As relief for a denial of a FAPE to the student, the IHO ordered the district to provide the student with a 1:1 behavioral support paraprofessional who was trained in supporting students with emotional, behavioral, and communication needs; and who was familiar with the academic and behavioral profiles of students "of a similar age and disability status [as the s]tudent" (id. at p. 10). The IHO further ordered that the district could provide the service through the use of an RSA or "through any other means the district c[ould] use to ensure that th[e] service [wa]s provided and th[e] directive implemented immediately" (id. at p. 11). The IHO also directed the district to fund an independent functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and, if recommended, a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) to be conducted by a licensed psychologist of the parent's choosing and at the provider's customary rate (id.). Lastly, the IHO directed that within seven days of receipt of the FBA/BIP, the district must "coordinate with [the p]arent to assist [her] in procuring the services and supports that [the s]tudent require[d]" and that "[i]n coordinating and scheduling [the s]tudent's [CPSE] meeting, the [district must] invite [the student's] SEIT to participate in the [CPSE] meeting" (id.).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parent appeals and argues that the IHO erred in failing to grant effective relief. The parent further contends that the IHO's decision left the student in the classroom with the same untrained paraprofessional that the district assigned on the first day of school, and did not compel the district to provide funding for the SEIT's participation in the development of the FBA/BIP and IEP. Related to those allegations, the parent set forth five issues for review and requested, as relief, an RSA for a trained paraprofessional to support the student immediately, funding for the student's SEIT to participate in all IEP and BIP development meetings, an order directing the district to ensure paraprofessional training is completed within 30 days, with compliance reporting to the parent, and an order directing the district to preserve the student's pendency placement with a trained paraprofessional until the matter is resolved.

The district did not interpose an answer to the parent's request for review.

V. Discussion – Service of Pleadings

As a threshold matter, it must be determined whether the appeal should be dismissed due to improper service of the request for review.

An appeal from an IHO's decision to an SRO—whether the appeal is by a district or a parent—must be initiated by timely personal service of a verified request for review and other supporting documents, if any, upon respondent (8 NYCRR 279.4[b], [c]). Personal service on a school district is made "by delivering a copy thereof to the district clerk, to a trustee or member of the board of education of such school district, to the superintendent of schools, or to a person who has been designated by the board of education to accept service" (8 NYCRR 279.4[b]).

Generally, the failure to comply with the practice requirements of Part 279 of the State regulations, including the failure to properly serve an initiating pleading in a timely manner, may result in the rejection of the submitted documents or the dismissal of a request for review by an SRO (8 NYCRR 279.8[a]; 279.13; see B.C. v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 971 F. Supp. 2d 356, 365-66 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2013] [upholding an SRO's dismissal of a parent's appeal where, among other procedural deficiencies, the amended petition was not personally served upon the district]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 16-015 [dismissing a parent's appeal for failure to effectuate proper personal service of the petition upon the district where the parent served a district employee not authorized to accept service]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-117 [dismissing a parent's appeal for failure to effectuate proper personal service in a timely manner where the parent served a CSE chairperson and, thereafter, served the superintendent but not until after the time permitted by State regulation expired]; see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-042 [dismissing parent's appeal for failure to properly effectuate service of the petition in a timely manner where the parent served the district's counsel by overnight mail]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11- 013 [dismissing parent's appeal for failure to timely effectuate personal service of petition upon the district]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-012 [dismissing parents' appeal for failure to timely effectuate personal service of petition upon the district]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-099 [dismissing parents' appeal for failure to timely effectuate personal service of the petition upon the district]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 05-082 [dismissing a district's appeal for failure to personally serve the petition upon the parent where the district served the parent's former counsel by overnight mail]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 05-060 [dismissing a district's appeal for failing to timely file a hearing record on appeal]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-045 [dismissing a parent's appeal for, among other reasons, failure to effectuate proper personal service where the parent served a school psychologist]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 01-048 [dismissing a district's appeal for failure to personally serve the petition upon the parent where the district served the parent by facsimile]).

The parent, who is not represented, filed with the Office of State Review a request for review dated September 25, 2025, a verification sworn to on September 25, 2025, and an affidavit of service indicating that a notice of intention to seek review, a request for review and a memorandum of law were served upon the district on September 26, 2025 by certified mail, return receipt requested and addressed to the district's Impartial Hearing Office.

There is no indication in the parent's affidavit of service that she communicated with the district in any way and no indication that the district agreed to waive personal service upon an individual who was designated to receive service on behalf of the district (see 8 NYCRR 279.4[b]). The district filed the hearing record in this matter in response to an inquiry from the Office of State Review. The district has not otherwise appeared in this matter or submitted an answer. In its letter accompanying its response to correspondence from the Office of State Review, the district indicated that it had not been served with any papers related to the matter.

State regulations do not preclude a school district and a parent from agreeing to "waive" personal service of the request for review, and it is generally permitted for parties to agree to service by an alternate delivery method (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 25-313). The Office of State Review's website reflects this option as follows:

The State regulations do not preclude a school district and a parent from agreeing to "waive" the personal service method. Waiver of personal service is not permitted unless the party being served agrees to accept papers in an alternate delivery method. If both sides agree, it is strongly advisable for the parties to have such an agreement in writing.

(Overview to Part 279: Filing a Review for Review (Section I): Serve and File the Request for Review [emphasis in the original], available at https://www.sro.nysed.gov/book/serve-and-file- request-review).

Here, there is no indication that the district agreed to accept service of the request for review and supporting documents by certified mail to the Impartial Hearing Office. Based on the foregoing, the parent failed to initiate the appeal in accordance with the practice regulations. The parent improperly served the request for review via certified mail and did not personally serve the request for review upon the district clerk, a trustee or member of the board of education, the superintendent of schools, or to a person designated by the board of education to accept service (see Aff. of Service). Additionally, the parent did not serve the district with a notice of intention to seek review, nor did her request for review include a notice of request for review (see 8 NYCRR 279.2[b], [e]; 279.4[a]). Under these circumstances, given the deficiencies in compliance with Part 279 and the defects in service on the district, the appeal must be dismissed.