Due Process Hearing Case Study

Petitioner, Triniti T. (“Student” or “Petitioner”) filed her initial request for due process hearing (“Beaumont I”) on February 24, 2014. In the request, Petitioner alleged that the District denied Student a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”). A hearing was held on June 24-26, 2014 and a Decision following due process hearing (“Decision”) was issues on August 28, 2014. The Decision found that Petitioner had met her burden in proving that the District failed to provide Student with a FAPE in specific areas and the Petitioner was entitled various relief including, but not limited to specific prospective placement, services, assessments, training, devices/equipment for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year; program development for the 2015-2016 school year, and reimbursement

The parties in Beaumont II were the same as the parties in Beaumont I. Following briefing by the parties, through a March 11, 2015 Order the Hearing Officer dismissed Beaumont II, finding that the issue alleged was a failure by the District to abide by the August 28, 2014 Decision and the Hearing Officer lacks authority to enforce its own orders. The Hearing Officer found the proper mechanism to enforce an order was through TEA or the courts.
On May 7, 2015 Petitioner filed a request for due process hearing (“Beaumont III”). Pursuant to a notice of insufficiency filed by the District, the Hearing Officer concluded that the complaint was insufficient and grating Petitioner Leave to Amend. On May 20, 2015, the Petitioner filed an amended complaint to which the District filed objections and a plea to the jurisdiction. Through a June 15, 2015 Order the Hearing Officer dismissed the Beaumont III, finding the issues pled sought to enforce the Hearing Officers Decision in Beaumont