Page 31 - CLT010421

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JANUARY 4, 2021 ¦ 31

himself, and that the statute of limitations de- process hearing. Instead, plaintiff brought the
fense did not apply as this was an action sound- operative 32-count complaint including alleg-
ing in equity. Defendants appealed arguing the ing discrimination and negligence per se, and
action was tortious financial misconduct, and defendant moved to dismiss for failure to ex-
therefore the trial court improperly concluded haust administrative remedies under IDEA.
a declaratory judgment was not barred, but the The trial court granted the motion to dismiss,
court disagreed. The court found declaratory finding plaintiff must exhaust administra-
judgment is equitable in nature, similar to an tive remedies when filing a claim for denial
injunction, and therefore it was not barred by of FAPE. Plaintiff appealed, arguing he was
the statute of limitations. The court affirmed not claiming a denial of FAPE, and the court
the trial court’s decision. affirmed the trial court’s finding. The court
found plaintiff ’s allegations of violation of the
IDEA provisions were in fact denials of the
EDUCATION LAW • student’s FAPE. The court found plaintiff had
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW • CIVIL PROCEDURE not exhausted his administrative remedies, as

Court Affirms Dismissal for Failure required for denial of FAPE under IDEA, and
to Exhaust Administrative Remedies upheld the dismissal of the complaint.

under IDEA SUPERIOR COURT

CASE: Phillips v. Town of Hebron
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42276 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
COURT OPINION BY: Alvord
DATE: December 22, 2020 • PAGES: 26 Court Sustains Animal Control over
Neglected Dogs
The minor plaintiff, a seven-year-old with
Down syndrome, was a student at a school in
the defendant town, and was on an individual- CASE: Town of New Canaan v. Palmer
ized education program. While observing the COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
child’s classroom, plaintiff ’s father witnessed DOC. NO.: CV-20-6049313
minor plaintiff and his assigned paraprofes- COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
sional going into a coatroom. At a Planning DATE: December 07, 2020 • PAGES: 20
and Placement Team meeting, plaintiff ’s fa- Plaintiff, through their animal control offi-
ther asked where plaintiff napped and how cer, seized and retained possession of 12 dogs
much time plaintiff spent in the coatroom owned by defendant, alleging animal cruelty
doing classwork; plaintiff ’s classroom teacher on the part of the owner. Defendant moved for
indicated the student napped in the coatroom an injunction on the temporary possession of
and used the extra space available in the coa- the animals, arguing the plaintiff had the bur-
troom for projects, but also that the student den to make a showing of imminent harm as to
distracted others. Plaintiff ’s parents submit- each individual animal rather than the group
ted a Special Education Complaint Form to of them together, in addition to a showing of
the Department Education, Bureau of Spe- the physical/medical conditions of the animals
cial Education and sought several remedies and the general conditions of the premises. The
including money damages and a due process court, in weighing the credibility of both the
hearing. The Board sought to dismiss the re- defendant and the animal control officer as well
quest for the due process hearing, noting that as the evidence related to the condition of the
money damages were not available under the home and defendant’s frequency of presence at
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. the premises to care for the dogs, analyzed the
Plaintiff ’s parents withdrew their request for conditions for every dog and found sufficient
money damages and due process hearing. indication of neglect. The court specifically
The Department concluded there was no de- noted the defendant had been deliberately de-
nial of the student’s free appropriate public ceptive about whether the dogs had been vac-
education and stated that the parties could cinated for parvovirus, when in fact they had
request a due process hearing thereafter, but not. The court found the plaintiff was to retain
the plaintiff failed to make a request for a due temporary care and custody of the animals.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune