Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JOANNE M. MILLAY, as Parent of minor child Y.M., Plaintiff v. SURRY SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:07-cv-00178-JAW

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION FOR ORDER MODIFYING STAY
AND

ORDER RESERVING RULING ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND RESPECTING REMEDY I have today issued a recommended decision in a companion case, Millay v. Surry School Department, 1:09-cv-411-JAW. In that recommended decision I have concluded that Hearing Officer Rebeka Smith correctly determined that the IEP and placement developed by the Surry School Department for the minor child, Y.M., for the 2008-2009 school year, was properly designed to provide a free and appropriate public education. At issue in this proceeding is an earlier time period, specifically the 2006-2007 school year and the 2007-2008 school year. This case began in November 27, 2007, and has had a litigation history too extensive to repeat here. Suffice it to say that as a result of an order issued by Chief Judge Woodcock on April 21, 2010, the issue that should remain for decision in this case pertains to fashioning a remedy for what this court found to be the Surry School Department's denial of a free appropriate public education to Y.M. commencing in the Spring of 2006 and continuing into the 2007-2008 school year. (See Doc. No. 157.) As a result of that order, I fashioned a briefing schedule on the issue

of remedy that would allow both sides to submit certain information to the Court. Briefing is now complete on the issue of remedy, but as so often has happened in the course of this case, before a decision on this issue of remedy can issue, other matters raised by the parties must be addressed. Pro Se1 Motion for Modification of Stay-Put Order Following an initial skirmish over the availability of injunctive relief given the procedural posture when the case was initially filed, the parties briefed the issue of the appropriate stay put placement pursuant to a scheduling order of July 22, 2008 (Doc. No. 34). In her materials, Ms. Millay argued in favor of a life-skills program in a public high school despite the fact that the proposed high school (Mount Desert Island High School) is one that Y.M. never attended. (Id.; see also Def.'s Br. in Support of Def.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Request for Prelim. Inj., Doc. No. 37.) Then, in October 2008, and following extensive briefing by the parties on the appropriate stay put placement, the Court issued an order rejecting Ms. Millay's proposed placement. Relying on the federal statutory law, 20 U.S.C.

Download MJK_12082010_1-07cv178_Millay_v_Surry.pdf

Maine Law