Growing Awareness Surrounding Bullying of Students with Disabilities in Fairfield County

By Leigh H. Ryan, Esq.

                 Bullying has gained the attention of the media over recent years, but despite the focused spotlight, bullying is rampant in our society.  Among the easiest targets are children with special needs.  They are, on average, at a greater risk to be bullied than their non-disabled counterparts.  This is in part because special education children make easy targets. It is often harder for children with disabilities to recognize which behaviors are socially appropriate and those that are not.

                 Many organizations are stepping up to the challenge of educating the community and parents on the complex issues surrounding bullying of students with disabilities. The Stratford Special Education Teacher and Parent Association recently held a presentation on “Bullying of Students with Disabilities.” The presentation focused on how to help schools avoid litigation stemming from the targeting of children with special education needs. The hope is to set up systems in schools that address bullying before it becomes a problem.  Interestingly, the presentation also focused on teaching parents how to work with the school system to effectively develop plans to prevent harassment of their children.  It is important that parents work with school administrators to develop Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that encourages students to learn, develop self-advocacy, and social and life skills necessary to reduce disability related harassment.  

                 In addition to parents and school administrators working together to reduce and bring awareness to bullying and its drastic effects, it is also important to be familiar with the laws that protect children with disabilities.  At Maya Murphy, P.C., we have experience dealing with Education Law, harassment or bullying, Special Education Law, and discrimination. 

                  If you have any questions relating to Special Education Law, please contact Leigh H. Ryan, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at LRyan@Mayalaw.com.

Connecticut School Districts and Bullying: What can parents do?

I was greeted this morning with a very unfortunate email.  The email concerned bullying in Westport Schools and included a heart wrenching video of an 8^th grade girl claiming to be a victim of bullying in Westport schools. (http://patch.com/A-gcKG) It is just not enough to feel sorry for this victim of bullying, we need to question the effectiveness of the current law and policies in place to avoid the tragic consequences that other towns have dealt with because their students were victims of bullying.

I previously blogged about the revisions to Connecticut’s law against bullying in 2008.  Under Connecticut General Statute section 10-222d, the law requires “any overt acts by a student or group of students directed against another student with the intent to ridicule, harass, humiliate or intimidate the other student while on school grounds, at a school sponsored activity or on a school bus, which acts are committed more than once against any student during the school year.” In addition to definitional changes, the statute requires:

1) teachers and other staff members who witness acts of bullying to make written notification to school administrators;

2) prohibits disciplinary actions based solely on the basis of an anonymous report of bullying;

3) requires prevention strategies as well as interventions strategies;

4) requires that parents of a student who commits verified acts of bullying or against whom such bullying occurred be notified by each school and be invited to attend at least one meeting;

5) requires school to annually report the number of verified acts of bullying to the State Department of Education (DOE);

6) no later than February 1, 2009, boards must submit the bullying policies to the DOE;

7) no later than July 1, 2009, boards must include their bullying policy in their school district’s publications of rules, procedures and standards of conduct for school and in all of its student handbooks, and

effective July 1, 2009, boards must now provide in-service training for its teacher and administrators on prevention of bullying.

            Westport responded to the requirements of this statute with a comprehensive bullying policy which can be found on the school district’s website under the tab for parents, and then selecting policies.  Here is the direct link to the policy: (http://www2.westport.k12.ct.us/media/policies/prohibition_against_bullying_5131.911_revised_8.25.2008.pdf)

            Armed with Connecticut’s law and Westport’s policy, what should we do as parents, community members, and professionals?  I do not profess to have the answers but at a minimum, we should discuss this with our children, question the school administrators, guidance staff and teachers. Together we should challenge ourselves to make a difference using the channels available to us.  There are ways that we can help to effectuate change before it is too late.  If you know of a child affected by bullying, please act on their behalf.  Not every student will post a video to tell you this is happening. If the school is not addressing the bullying in a meaningful way to eradicate the conduct, legal redress is available and the courts will readily intervene.

            If you have any questions please feel free to contact me by telephone in the Firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at SMaya@Mayalaw.com. Attorney Maya is a partner at Maya Murphy, P.C. Her practice is limited to Education Law and Trusts and Estates.

Bullying: Teacher Placed on DCF’s Child Abuse and Neglect Registry After Bullying 12 year-old Boy

                 Twelve-year-old Kyle G., while attending MicroSociety Magnet School in New Haven, Connecticut, was subjected to repeated harassment and bullying.  However, Kyle’s bully was not another student, but rather his teacher Nicholas Frank.  The witnesses, Kyle’s classmates.

                 Mr. Frank subjected Kyle to constant ridicule in front of Kyle’s classmates, calling Kyle “cheeks,” “birthing mother,” “fish out of water.” Mr. Frank even resorted to physical harassment, by pinching Kyle’s cheeks.  Mr. Frank limited Kyle to asking only ten (10) questions a day, and if Kyle went over, Kyle could choose his punishment: have his cheeks pinched or a lunch detention.  As a result, Kyle became terrified in class, as he was afraid of how Mr. Frank was going to make fun of him next. Kyle’s grades started slipping from A’s to C’s. He had trouble sleeping and started wetting his bed.

                 Kyle’s mother became alarmed and reported her concerns to the school administrators. Upon learning of Mr. Frank’s actions, the school advised him to stop calling Kyle names, stop pinching his cheeks, and to minimize contact with Kyle.  When questioned, other students confirmed Kyle’s story. Students reported that Mr. Frank called Kyle “pregnant” due to his weight.  As a result of the investigation, Mr. Frank was suspended for eight days without pay.

                 Connecticut Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) learned of the incident and charged Mr. Frank with emotional neglect. A hearing officer substantiated the finding, holding that Mr. Frank “subjected Kyle to ‘acts, statements, or threats’ that would have an adverse impact on Kyle, including referring to his facial appearance and his weight. After substantiating the findings, DCF had a separate hearing as to whether Mr. Frank should be placed on DCF’s central registry of child abuse and neglect.  In deciding to place Mr. Frank on the central registry, the hearing officer determinate that Mr. Frank “in light of the attention given to anti-bullying in the school context, should have been aware of the implications of his statements. Kyle suffered an adverse emotional impact from the plaintiff’s [Mr. Frank’s] behavior as his grades dropped and his fear of school increased.” The hearing officer found that Mr. Frank had a pattern of abuse.

                 On Mr. Frank’s appeal of the DCF’s findings, the Superior Court rejected Mr. Frank’s arguments that the decision was not based on substantial evidence. The Court stated, “the court defers to the conclusion of the hearing officer who noted that teachers through the schools districts are on notice that poking fun at students is inappropriate behavior.”

                 If you or someone you know has been a victim of bullying or harassment, please contact a knowledgeable attorney.  At Maya Murphy, P.C., we have decades of experience dealing with Education Law, harassment or bullying, Special Education Law, and discrimination– often in situations where they run concurrently.  We handle all types of issues, in a broad geographic area, which includes Westport, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, and the entire Fairfield County area.

                 If you have any questions relating to Special Education Law, please contact Leigh H. Ryan, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at LRyan@Mayalaw.com.

Best Personal Injury Lawyers in Connecticut: Maya Murphy

Joseph C. Maya, Esq. is one of the best personal injury lawyers in the state. He is the Managing Partner at Maya Murphy, P.C., with offices in Connecticut and New York. He personally invests in cases to ensure the best outcome for each client. Other lawyers settle cases prematurely because they can’t afford to continue the case because of the costs and expenses associated with litigating complex personal injury cases. Joseph Maya is not afraid to litigate cases and to take cases to trial. He is also prepared financially to go the distance on each case. To contact Mr. Maya you can call his office at (203) 221-3100 or send him a confidential e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com

Physical injuries occur in every place imaginable. Motor Vehicle Accidents – Drunk driving, speeding, and aggressive driving all contribute to motor vehicle accidents involving automobiles, tractor-trailers and other large trucks, bicycles, motorcycles, and pedestrians. When reckless or negligent driving contributes to an accident, such behavior can result in serious injuries. •Defective products – Products sold without government approval or those that malfunction when used can cause burns, blindness, and other disabilities. •Dog and animal bites – Dog and other pets present a risk for visitors to a property. Even if there is a posted Beware of Dog warning sign, the animal owner is still liable for any injury caused by their pet. •Lead poisoning and asbestos – The use of lead and asbestos in homes and buildings cause long-term health effects such as cognitive problems, mesothelioma, and respiratory ailments. •Medical malpractice cases – Errors in medical treatment, instruments left in patients during surgery, and misdiagnoses are common instances of medical malpractice which can cause long-term injury and death. •Nursing home abuse – The elderly are at the mercy of healthcare providers and improperly screened individuals who may manipPhysical Injuries Physical injuries are the most common type of personal injury because there are countless ways for them to occur in every place imaginable. Cases of physical injury may include: •Motor Vehicle Accidents – Drunk driving, speeding, and aggressive driving all contribute to motor vehicle accidents involving automobiles, tractor-trailers and other large trucks, bicycles, motorcycles, and pedestrians. When reckless or negligent driving contributes to an accident, such behavior can result in serious injuries. •Defective products – Products sold without government approval or those that malfunction when used can cause burns, blindness, and other disabilities. •Dog and animal bites – Dog and other pets present a risk for visitors to a property. Even if there is a posted Beware of Dog warning sign, the animal owner is still liable for any injury caused by their pet. •Lead poisoning and asbestos – The use of lead and asbestos in homes and buildings cause long-term health effects such as cognitive problems, mesothelioma, and respiratory ailments. •Medical malpractice cases – Errors in medical treatment, instruments left in patients during surgery, and misdiagnoses are common instances of medical malpractice which can cause long-term injury and death. •Nursing home abuse – The elderly are at the mercy of healthcare providers and improperly screened individuals who may manipulate, shove, or withhold treatment causing physical and psychological abuse. •Premises liability – The negligence of a property owner or maintenance company can cause someone to slip and fall, or be injured by a defective piece of equipment. •Slip and fall – Slip and fall accidents are the most frequent types of premises liability cases and can result in serious injury or death. •Wrongful Death – If a loved one dies as a direct result of a company, entity, or individual’s negligence, recklessness, or misconduct, you have the right to file a wrongful death claim. ulate, shove, or withhold treatment causing physical and psychological abuse. •Premises liability – The negligence of a property owner or maintenance company can cause someone to slip and fall, or be injured by a defective piece of equipment. •Slip and fall – Slip and fall accidents are the most frequent types of premises liability cases and can result in serious injury or death. •Wrongful Death – If a loved one dies as a direct result of a company, entity, or individual’s negligence, recklessness, or misconduct, you have the right to file a wrongful death claim. If you want to discuss a personal injury case with us, please call Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Court Denies Injunction Against Former IBM Executive

Court Denies Injunction Against Former IBM Executive

By:  Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.

Early in the morning of January 19, 2011, Mr. Visentin notified IBM that he was leaving the company to work for a major competitor- Hewlett-Packard.  Just one day later, he found himself the subject of a lawsuit.  On January 20, 2011, in an effort to enforce the parties’ noncompetition agreement, IBM filed suit against Mr. Visentin, a former executive, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.  On January 24, 2011, the Court issued a temporary restraining order, and scheduled the case for a preliminary injunction hearing.  Within five days of providing IBM with notice of his departure, Mr. Visentin was effectively without a job, precluded- at least temporarily- from engaging in his newly secured position.  This case demonstrates not only the force, speed and agility of a large corporation’s legal team, but perhaps more importantly, illustrates the effectiveness of a quickly orchestrated and well-executed legal defense.

Prior to his resignation, Mr. Visentin worked for IBM in various capacities for twenty-six years.  In 2006, he became a Global Vice President in the company’s Integrated Technology Services Group (ITS).  Then, in September, 2007, he became General Manager of the ITS business.  Responsible for providing its clients with various technology services, including services to improve data storage and recovery capabilities, protect networks from viruses, and implement data security systems, this segment generates approximately five thousand to nine thousand deals per quarter, and total revenue of $2.5 billion annually.  In December, 2008, Mr. Visentin was appointed to IBM’s Integration and Value Team, a leadership group that develops IBM’s corporate strategy.  Although there were technical aspects of Mr. Visentin’s various positions, after hearing four days of testimony, the Court found that he was a business manager, not a technical expert. 

As part of his employment with IBM, Mr. Visentin signed two noncompetition agreements, the first on July 16, 2008 and the second on July 29, 2009.  The July 29^th agreement essentially provided that during his employment with IBM, and for 12 months thereafter, he would not directly or indirectly engage in or associate with any competitors of the company.  Mr. Visentin also agreed to a restrictive covenant precluding him from soliciting IBM clients for a period of one year, and IBM employees for a period of two years.

IBM’s first argument was that if Mr. Visentin were allowed to work for HP, IBM would be irreparably harmed because Mr. Visentin’s new position posed the risk that he would inevitably disclose confidential IBM information.  IBM argued that Mr. Visentin possessed a plethora of confidential information including strategic business and marketing plans, “strategic initiative,” new service offerings, acquisition plans, the operational finances of the ITS business, IBM’s competitive business and pricing strategies, the identity of new client targets, the identify of troubled clients, and IBM’s competitive strategies to attack HP.

In denying IBM’s application for an injunction, the Court first noted that a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be routinely granted.”  Med. Soc’y of State of N.Y. v. Toia, 560 F.2d 535, 538 (2^nd Cir. 1977).  Indeed, to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate, first, that it will be irreparably harmed if an injunction is not granted, and, second, either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, as well as a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.  Lusk v. Vill. Of Cold Spring, 475 F.3d 480, 485 (2^nd Cir. 2007).  To show that it will be irreparably harmed, a movant bears the burden of demonstrating that absent an injunction, it will suffer an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but rather actual and imminent, and one that cannot be redressed through a monetary award. Payment Alliance Int’l, Inc. v. Ferreira, 530 F. Supp. 2d 477, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 

Next, the Court explained that in New York, properly scoped noncompetition agreements are enforceable to protect an employer’s legitimate interests so long as they pose no undue hardship on the employee and do not militate against public policy.  BDO Seidman v. Hirshber, 712 N.E. 2d 1220, 1223 (N.Y. 1999).  The Court further explained that trade secrets and confidential information are considered legitimate interests; however, only that confidential information or those trade secrets that the employee misappropriates or will inevitably disclose are protectable.  Reed, Roberts Assocs., Inc. v. Strauman, 353 N.E. 2d 590, 593 (N.Y. 1976). 

In ruling in Mr. Visentin’s favor, the Court noted that his primary job at IBM was to be a general manager, explaining, “[a]lthough trade secrets may have lurked somewhere on the periphery, the real thrust of his position was to manage his teams to make them as efficient as possible.”  The Court relied on Mr. Visentin’s testimony that he had never taken a computer science course and considered himself a generalist.  Mr. Visentin testified, “I am not technical, I don’t know the details of offerings, I’m more of a general manager and I run a business.” 

The Court also relied on the testimony of Mr. Visentin’s new manager at HP, who confirmed that Mr. Visentin’s generalist qualities were the driving factor behind his hiring.  Mr. Visentin’s future manager testified that he hired Mr. Visentin because, “he had good general IT services knowledge [and] broad experience,” and that Mr. Visentin struck him, “as a process-oriented thinker, a guy who could sort of connect the dots, if you will, of the overall responsibilities of the job.”  He also testified that Mr. Visentin’s job would not include involvement in technical services, but rather would be to “manage people.” 

Although IBM identified numerous types of information potentially in Mr. Visentin’s possession which it argued should be afforded protection, the court noted that much of the information is either applicable to all large corporations, in the public domain, or outdated, and, thus, does not constitute “trade secrets.”   The court also explained that simply showing Mr. Visentin had access to some confidential information does not sufficiently demonstrate irreparable harm.  IBM failed to provide specific examples of confidential or trade secret information that could actually be used to its detriment if Mr. Visentin were allowed to assume his new position at HP.  The Court further held that IBM failed to demonstrate Mr. Visentin’s position at HP would require him to disclose any confidential IBM information he might remember. 

Attorney DeMeola is an associate in Maya Murphy, P.C.’s Litigation Department, practicing primarily in the areas of Labor/Employment Law and Civil Litigation.  He can be reached by telephone in the Firm’s Westport office at (203) 221-3100 or by e-mail at mdemeola@mayalaw.com.

The Best Employment Lawyers in Connecticut and New York

Employment Discrimination Lawyers in New York and Connecticut

State and national laws protect employees from being subjected to discriminatory treatment and termination in the workplace because of the employee’s gender, race, age, national origin, religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or disability. If you have reason to believe that you have experienced discrimination on the job, you should contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. right away. Mr. Maya has a national reputation for successfully handling employment discrimination matters. He can be contacted via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by dialing (203) 221-3100 in Connecticut or (212) 682-5700 in New York.

 

Laws Protect Employees from Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

These laws also protect employees from sexual harassment , a hostile work environment, and from being touched in an offensive manner in the workplace by supervisors, coworkers, or even clients. Employees have a right to stop discriminatory conduct in the workplace. If an employee tries to stop that conduct or notifies a supervisor that discriminatory conduct has occurred, that employee also has protection, under state and national laws, from retaliation by the supervisor or employer. In fact, any person who complains to his or her superior or employer has protection from the law against retaliation by his or her employer. If you feel you might be a victim of racial, gender, or sexual discrimination on the job, you should contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by dialing him at (203) 221-3100 or (212) 682-5700. Let our experience guide you and protect your legal rights at work.

Serving Stamford, Greenwich, Norwalk and surrounding communities including Darien, New Canaan, Westport, Wilton & Weston; the greater Bridgeport area including Fairfield, Stratford, Monroe & Redding; the greater Danbury area including Ridgefield, Newtown & Bethel; and the communities surrounding Milford and New Haven. We also serve all of Westchester and New York Counties.

The Best Divorce Lawyers CT: Divorce Attorneys Fairfield County, Connecticut

Maya Murphy’s Matrimonial Law Group consists of a dedicated team of lawyers committed to representing its clients through the most complex divorce proceedings.  As a significant portion of our Matrimonial Law Group’s client base consists of high net worth individuals, we have experience dealing with the valuation and division of a variety of assets including businesses, residential and commercial real estate, high-end personal property, trusts, various retirement vehicles, as well as stocks, bonds and other securities.  Our matrimonial lawyers also counsel the Firm’s clients through the formation and execution of pre-marital agreements, and often collaborate with our Trusts & Estates Group regarding issues involving trusts, testamentary instruments and estate planning.  With attorneys licensed to practice in Connecticut and New York, we routinely handle cases originating in Fairfield County, Westchester County and New York City.

 Our Matrimonial Law Group represents clients in dissolution and separation proceedings, custody and child support cases, as well as post-judgment custody and support modifications.  Our matrimonial lawyers handle each and every case professionally and diligently.  Though we aggressively litigate our more acrimonious cases when required, we always take into account the individual and unique needs, position and desires of each client, and recognize the importance of negotiating settlements when appropriate.  Our matrimonial lawyers are well versed in the mediation process as well, and are often retained in a neutral capacity, providing our clients with an alternative to the traditional adversarial divorce model.

Maya Murphy’s Matrimonial Law Group is dedicated to providing its clients with high quality representation, including a thorough knowledge of the law, unsurpassed attention to detail, unwavering client support and constant preparedness.  We understand that our clients are often in the worst situations they will ever personally encounter, and seek, at every turn, to alleviate their fears while protecting and advancing their interests in a court of law.

Our firm provides representation in all trial and appellate courts for matters relating to dissolution of marriage including: legal separation, property division, alimony, child custody, child support, and visitation rights. Our firm is experienced in dealing with the legal, financial, emotional and psychological issues arising in family and matrimonial relationships. Our attorneys have extensive experience representing individuals in matters involving all types of divorce and family law issues.

Maya Murphy’s offices are located in Westport, Connecticut and serves clients in locations including Stamford, Hartford, New Haven, Danbury, Waterbury, Bridgeport, Greenwich, Norwalk, Milford, Stratford, Fairfield County, Hartford County, New Haven County, Litchfield County, Middlesex County, Tolland County, Windham County, and New London County.

To discuss a case please contact Joseph C. Maya or H. Daniel Murphy at (203) 221-3100 in Connecticut or (212) 682-5700 in New York. Mr. Maya can be reached via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com and Mr. Murphy can be reached via e-mail at HDMurphy@Mayalaw.com.

Westport Divorce Lawyers CT Divorce Attorneys Connecticut, westport divorce lawyer, westport divorce, divorce lawyers, westport divorce lawyers,
divorce attorneys, divorce attorney connecticut, divorce attorneys connecticut, Attorney Divorce Connecticut, Connecticut Divorce Lawyer, Connecticut Visitation, Spousal Support, Custody Support, Juvenile Law, Maya Murphy Attorneys at Law, Westport, norwalk, darien,
new-canaan, New Canaan, weston, Weston, new-haven-county, New Haven County, Maya Murphy represent clients in stamford, Stamford,
wilton, Wilton, greenwich, Greenwich, fairfield, Fairfield, Connecticut Divorce Attorneys, divorce, Divorce, custody-support, Child Custody
Child Support, family-law-property, Family Law, Connecticut Divorce Attorney, Connecticut, family law attorney in Fairfield County Connecticut,
division of assets, separation agreement, Connecticut divorce, attorney, court, Connecticut divorce attorneys, aggressive advocates
experienced litigators, Westport divorce lawyers, extensive experience resolving child custody, child visitation, Connecticut child support guidelines,
child custody, child support, Visitation and Child Support, Juvenile Law, Maya Murphy, Attorneys at Law, Westport CT Divorce Lawyers, Juvenile and Family Law, Westport Divorce Lawyers, CT Divorce Attorney, Divorce in Connecticut, Family Law in Connecticut, Juvenile Law Connecticut
Divorce and Court, Property Division in Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Divorce Court, Westport divorce amicable, trial, contested issues
mediation, settlement conference, experienced Connecticut divorce attorney, satisfactory divorce settlement agreement, divorce mediation or settlement conference, Connecticut divorce attorney, extensive divorce mediation, negotiation, settlement experience, Custody Support Connecticut
Visitation Connecticut, Mediation, complex issues, business valuations, retirement accounts, pensions, real estate property disputes,
disagreement on child custody, difficult litigation, protect interests, out-of-court settlements, divorce mediation, settlement conferences, negotiations
experienced Westport divorce attorneys, aggressively litigate, Property Division, divorces, top-notch legal representation, complex stock portfolios
business valuation, real estate transactions, financially complex divorces, Hidden Financial Assets, hidden assets, secretly transferred,
asset valuation, property division, alimony, length of marriage, age and health of spouses, occupation and income of spouses, vocation skills and employability, marital estate, needs of each party, advocate zealously,

Leading Divorce Law Firm in Fairfield County Connecticut: Maya Murphy

Maya Murphy’s Matrimonial Law Group consists of a dedicated team of lawyers committed to representing its clients through the most complex divorce proceedings.  As a significant portion of our Matrimonial Law Group’s client base consists of high net worth individuals, we have experience dealing with the valuation and division of a variety of assets including businesses, residential and commercial real estate, high-end personal property, trusts, various retirement vehicles, as well as stocks, bonds and other securities.  Our matrimonial lawyers also counsel the Firm’s clients through the formation and execution of pre-marital agreements, and often collaborate with our Trusts & Estates Group regarding issues involving trusts, testamentary instruments and estate planning.  With attorneys licensed to practice in Connecticut and New York, we routinely handle cases originating in Fairfield County, Westchester County and New York City.

 Our Matrimonial Law Group represents clients in dissolution and separation proceedings, custody and child support cases, as well as post-judgment custody and support modifications.  Our matrimonial lawyers handle each and every case professionally and diligently.  Though we aggressively litigate our more acrimonious cases when required, we always take into account the individual and unique needs, position and desires of each client, and recognize the importance of negotiating settlements when appropriate.  Our matrimonial lawyers are well versed in the mediation process as well, and are often retained in a neutral capacity, providing our clients with an alternative to the traditional adversarial divorce model.

Maya Murphy’s Matrimonial Law Group is dedicated to providing its clients with high quality representation, including a thorough knowledge of the law, unsurpassed attention to detail, unwavering client support and constant preparedness.  We understand that our clients are often in the worst situations they will ever personally encounter, and seek, at every turn, to alleviate their fears while protecting and advancing their interests in a court of law.

To discuss a case please contact Joseph C. Maya or H. Daniel Murphy at (203) 221-3100 in Connecticut or (212) 682-5700 in New York. Mr. Maya can be reached via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com and Mr. Murphy can be reached via e-mail at HDMurphy@Mayalaw.com.

What Parents Need to Know About Special Education Law

             The state and federal governments enacted various regulations to protect a student with disabilities and to ensure that he or she obtains a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).  Parents play a key role in the success of any special education program implemented for their children. Given the complexity of the laws, it is important to understand the significant responsibility a parent has in the special education system.

             1.         Referral to Special Education and related services:  This is the first step in the process to determine a child’s eligibility for special education and related services. Parents should be aware that you have the right to request such a referral.  The referral must be in writing.  School officials also have the ability to make a referral.  However, a parent is often in a better position to suspect any disabilities, and can make an early referral to special education services through Connecticut’s Birth to Three program, prior to enrollment in school.  

             2.         Planning and Placement Team (PPT):  The PPT reviews all referrals to special education. As a parent of a child, you have the right to be actively involved in the PPT, and are, in fact, a valued asset of the PPT.   A PPT generally consists of the parent(s), one of the child’s educators, a special education teacher, a representative of the school district, a pupil services personnel, and the child (depending on age).   As a parent, you have the right to include other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding your child.  As a valued member of the PPT, the school district must try to schedule meetings at a mutually agreeable time and place for you and must notify you, in writing, at least five (5) school days prior to holding the meeting.

             3.         Evaluations, Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE), and Reevaluations: The evaluation is the study used to determine a child’s specific learning strengths and needs, and ultimately determine whether your child is eligible for special education services. As an active participant, a parent can assist the PPT in designing the evaluation.  That is why sharing with the PPT all important information concerning your child’s skills, abilities, observations, and needs can be extremely beneficial to the process.  If you disagree with the evaluation conducted by the school district, you have a right to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE).  Such an IEE can be obtained at the school district’s expense, unless the school district can prove its evaluation is appropriate or that the IEE does not meet the school district’s criteria. If the school district believes that its evaluation was appropriate, it must initiate a due process hearing (or pay for the IEE).  In either event, you have a right to an IEE. However, if the school district’s evaluation is found appropriate, the parent will have to bear the cost of the IEE.  Reevaluation must be performed at least once every three (3) years, or sooner if conditions warrant. At the reevaluation, the educational needs of your child will be assessed, along with present levels of academic and related development needs of your child to determine whether your child continues to need special education and related services and whether your child’s IEP needs to be modified.

             4.         Individualized Education Program (IEP): The IEP is a written plan that describes in detail your child’s special education program created by the PPT. Given the IEP is designed specifically for your child, it is vital that as a parent you exercise your right to be actively involved in the PPT meetings.  The IEP is designed to identify your child’s current levels of education and functional performance and any modifications or accommodations your child needs to participate in the general education curriculum. A child with a disability must, to the maximum extent possible, be educated with his/her nondisabled peers.  This is called the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). By law, you are entitled to receive a copy of your child’s IEP within five (5) school days after the PPT meeting was held to develop or revise the same.

             5.         Informed Consent:  Prior to evaluating a child for the first time, a school district must obtain the parent’s written informed consent.  Informed consent means that a parent has been given all the information needed to make a knowledgeable decision. Written informed consent must also be obtained prior to the initial placement into special education, before a child is placed into private placement, and before a child is reevaluated.  As a parent, you can refuse to give your consent and you can withdraw consent once it has been given.  Giving consent for an initial evaluation does not mean that consent was given to place a child into special education or for any other purposes.  A school district must obtain separate written informed consent for each.

            6.         Placement: To the maximum extent possible, your child must be educated with his/her nondisabled peers in a general education classroom.  Removal from the school that your child would attend had he/she not had a disability, should only occur when the nature or the severity of the disability is such that educating your child in that setting cannot be achieved satisfactorily.  If this is the case with your child, the PPT must find an appropriate educational placement as close as possible to your home, at the cost of the school district.  While you can place your child in private placement on your own, there is no guarantee of full or partial reimbursement from the school district and that will ultimately depend on the findings by a hearing officer.

             7.         Disciplinary Procedures: The school district’s code of conduct applies to all children, with or without a disability. Prior to any suspension or removal, your child has the right to an informal hearing conducted by a school administrator. If it is determined by the PPT that the behavior was caused or related to your child’s disability, then your child may not be removed from the current education placement (except in the case of weapons, drugs, or infliction of serious bodily harm).  It is the PPT’s obligation to conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan. 

             8.         Access to Records:  If your child has not reached the age of majority, as a parent you have a right to inspect and review his/her school records. The request must be in writing. The school district must allow you to review the records within ten (10) school days from your request or within three (3) school days if you need the information for a PPT meeting.  Connecticut law provides that you are entitled one free copy of your child’s records, and the school district has up to five (5) school days to provide you with that copy.

             9.         Due Process: A parent has the right to ask for a due process hearing as a result of the school district’s refusal to consider or find that your child has a disability, to evaluate your child, to place your child in a school program that meets his/her needs, or to provide your child with a FAPE.   A parent may bring an advocate or attorney with them to aid throughout the hearing.  A hearing officer will make a final decision within 45 days from the start of the timeline.  Generally, while a due process hearing is pending, a child’s classification, program or placement cannot be changed.

             10.       Alternative Dispute Resolution: There are three ways, other than a full due process hearing, to settle disputes between parents and the school district. The first is the Complaint Resolution Process, wherein a parent files a written complaint with the Bureau of Special Education, alleging the local school district has violated a state or federal requirement.  Within sixty (60) days, a written report which includes the Bureau’s findings, conclusions, corrective actions and recommendations, will be mailed to the Complainant.  The second alternative is mediation. Both parties (the parents and the school district) must agree to mediate the dispute.  At mediation, if an agreement is reached, it is placed in writing and is legally binding.  All discussions during mediation are confidential.  The last alternative is an advisory opinion. This is a non-binding opinion, issued by a hearing officer, after a brief presentation of information by both parties.  After receiving the advisory opinion, the parties can decide to settle the dispute or proceed to a full due process hearing.

             At Maya Murphy, P.C., we have years of experience dealing with Special Education Law and have attorneys available to help your family effectively navigate the special education system. If you have any questions relating to Special Education Law, please contact Leigh H. Ryan, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at LRyan@Mayalaw.com.

What You Need to Know About Your Child’s Education

                  One of the reasons that parents work so hard is to be able to provide a better life and a better future for their children. The bedrock of a bright future is a good education.  As a parent, it is important to understand your rights and obligations when it comes to educating your children. 

                 (1)          As a parent, you are required to have your children enrolled in public school, unless the parent can show that the child is receiving equivalent instruction elsewhere. Under Connecticut law, the child must be “instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar, geography, arithmetic and United States history and in citizenship, including a study of the town, state and federal governments.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-184.

                 (2)          The local school board is required to provide school accommodations to every child, age five (5) or over and under twenty-one (21), with a free appropriate public education. This includes children with special needs. The law also provides for your child’s education to take place in the district in which you live.

                 (3)          The State of Connecticut has strict regulations concerning a child’s absence from school. Specifically, the State declares a child who has four (4) or more unexcused absences in a month or ten (10) or more unexcused absences during the school year as a “truant.” The designation of your child as a truant results in the activation of certain policies and procedures of the school board, including but not limited to, the notification of the parents, services and referrals to community organizations offering family support, meetings with the parents and school personnel, and possible notification to the Superior Court.  Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-198a. Habitual truants could even face arrest for failure to attend school. Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-200.

                 (4)          Connecticut law has established alternatives to traditional public school education. A parent can home school their children, as long as they comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-184. A parent can choose to send their child to private school, as long as that private school conforms to Connecticut’s laws. But what many parents are not aware of is that Connecticut also offers charter, magnet and vocational schools, and the “open choice” program.  Given the number of opportunities available to parents and children in Connecticut, it is important to research the various options to find the best match for you and your child.

                 (5)          The school has the right to discipline your child for breaking school rules. This could mean removing your child from the classroom, giving an in-school suspension, giving an out-of-school suspension, or even expelling your child from school. Prior to any suspension or removal, your child has the right to an informal hearing conducted by a school administrator. If the school is attempting to expel your client, there will be an expulsion hearing. You have a right to an attorney during these proceedings.

                 (6)          The school, prior to prescribing any medication to your child, must receive a written order from  an authorized prescriber, the written authorization of the child’s parent or guardian, and the written permission of the parent allowing communication between the prescriber and the school nurse.  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-212a-2(b). The law also permits school districts to allow children to self-administer prescribed emergency medications, such as asthma inhalers, if the child has a verified chronic medical condition and is capable to self-administer.

                 (7)          Bullying has become a pervasive problem within schools. State and Federal laws state that the school must investigate reports of bullying. The schools are obligated to meet with the children that are being bullied and whom are doing the bullying. If the schools fail to take certain steps to protect children from bullying, the school could be subject to civil liability. Therefore, if your child is being bullied, bring it to the attention of the schools so that they can attempt to remediate the situation.

                 (8)          Bullying is not just peer-on-peer. Recently, in Frank v. State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families, the Court upheld a hearing officer’s decision placing Mr. Frank’s name on the child abuse and neglect registry, for his bullying of one of his students. Consequently, as a parent you should be aware that bullying can take many forms, and can occur by teachers and other faculty members. 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3085, J.D. of New Britain, Docket No. CV-10-6005213-S (2010).

                 (9)          A parent has the right to see their child’s school records. A school is required to provide you with a copy of your child records within 45 days (within 10 days if your child is receiving special education services).  The school also has to provide the records free of cost if you are unable to afford the copying fees.

                 (10)        The school is not allowed to share your child’s school records without your written permission. While they are allowed to share your child’s records with other teachers and staff within the school system (or outside the school system in the case of an emergency), generally, your child’s records are private.

                 Should you have any questions concerning your child’s education, please do not hesitate to call our office.  Leigh H. Ryan is an attorney with Maya Murphy, P.C., and welcomes all inquiries.  She can be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by email at lryan@mayalaw.com.

Next Page »