DocketNumber: File 168682
Judges: Saden
Filed Date: 4/10/1978
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
The plaintiff is a thirteen-year-old child who requires special education as defined in General Statutes §
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant board has failed to provide such a program for her and, in the alleged absence of an adequate legal remedy, she claims a temporary order of mandamus requiring the defendants to provide the residential program she needs at the board's expense at the Bancroft School, which is located out of state. *Page 279
The stipulation of facts signed by both parties flatly states that the Foundation School is unable to provide the twenty-four-hour-a-day structure the plaintiff requires and that the defendant board's planning and placement team has twice recommended "residential placement," as has the director of the Foundation School. The defendant board, however, offered evidence that, except for the plaintiff's emotional and autistic problems which require the residential setting, her educational requirements can be met in Connecticut. The defendant board further contends that it recommended residential placement in order to maximize the plaintiff's improvement. The stipulation of facts fails to state why the defendant board recommended residential placement, and, apparently, its witnesses sought to indicate that that placement was not really necessary except for the plaintiff's emotional and behavioral problems.
It appears that the defendant board is willing to place the plaintiff in a residential setting but that it expects the plaintiff's parents to bear a small portion of the costs not related to her educational needs. This the plaintiff's parents do not agree to do. Sections
This hearing on a temporary order has not clearly set forth whether the plaintiff's placement in a residential setting is wholly for educational purposes or in part for noneducational reasons. It would seem that the plaintiff would obtain the maximum results from a residential setting but, as indicated, the facts do not clearly demonstrate whether such a setting is solely for educational reasons.
Finally, the plaintiff is confronted with the language of §