Ferreira v. Richard Carranza

Background

These related cases concerned Justine Ferreira’s request for “stay-put” funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). That provision generally requires the educational placement that was in effect during an administrative dispute to remain in place, with the school district continuing to fund it.

N.R., Ferreira’s child, attended the International Academy of Hope (iHOPE) during the 2017–2018 school year. On June 20, 2018, an impartial hearing officer approved funding for that year and determined that iHOPE was an appropriate placement. The next day, Ferreira notified the New York City Department of Education (DOE) that she intended to move N.R. to the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2018–2019 school year. The DOE did not agree to the transfer, and no impartial hearing officer approved it. N.R. nevertheless began attending iBrain on July 9, 2018.

Ferreira then sought funding for N.R.’s attendance at iBrain, including funding under the stay-put provision. In the first case, an impartial hearing officer denied pendency funding for 2018–2019, and the State Review Office upheld that denial on different grounds. The underlying request for free appropriate public education funding remained pending. Ferreira later enrolled N.R. at iBrain for 2019–2020 and filed another administrative funding action. An impartial hearing officer held a pendency hearing on January 15, 2020, but no decision had issued on either pendency or free appropriate public education funding when the court ruled.

Stay-Put Funding

The court treated the central question as whether a parent may select a different school during the administrative dispute and require the district to fund that school under the stay-put provision. The court adopted the view of other judges in the district that parents are not entitled to stay-put funding when they unilaterally change a child’s pendency-funded school without the school district’s agreement, whether through an impartial hearing officer or otherwise.

The court found no suggestion or evidence that iHOPE was inadequate, unavailable, or selected by the DOE in bad faith. It therefore concluded that Ferreira assumed responsibility for the costs of obtaining services at iBrain. The court also rejected the argument that iBrain became N.R.’s operative placement merely because Ferreira transferred N.R. there before or when the administrative actions were filed. Allowing a parent to establish the operative placement through a unilateral transfer, the court reasoned, would undermine the district’s ability to choose the program funded during the dispute.

State Education Department’s Motion

The State Education Department (SED) moved to dismiss the claims against it in the second case. Ferreira alleged that the SED had failed to ensure timely adjudication of her administrative due-process complaint and sought an order requiring the SED to appoint an impartial hearing officer.

The court granted the SED’s motion to dismiss because an impartial hearing officer had already been appointed and had held a hearing on the pendency-funding claim. Ferreira also identified no other continuing harm while the administrative action proceeded. The court noted that the enrollment contracts with iBrain deferred tuition payment until Ferreira’s right to IDEA funding was determined.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Ferreira’s motions for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. The court granted the DOE’s cross-motion for summary judgment in the first case and granted the SED’s motion to dismiss in the second case. The court also granted summary judgment to the DOE in the second case without a formal cross-motion, after concluding that Ferreira had an adequate opportunity to present the evidence relevant to that ruling. The court dismissed Ferreira’s complaints in both cases.