In re Hilary M.

73 Misc. 2d 513, 342 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2051
CourtNew York City Family Court
DecidedMarch 30, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 Misc. 2d 513 (In re Hilary M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Family Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Hilary M., 73 Misc. 2d 513, 342 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2051 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1972).

Opinion

Leon W. Paeon, J.

Petitioner, the mother of Hilary M., concededly a physically handicapped child, seeks an order for the education of her child under section 4403 of the Education Law or, in the alternative, under section 232 of the Family Court Act..

Hilary, now almost 15 years old, is a severe brain-damaged child who has been handicapped since birth because of a central nervous disfunction with cerebral dysrythmia and inability or severe limitations in capacity to form meaningful, effective relationships. She had attended the St. Joseph’s School for Exceptional Children in Dunkirk, New York, since September, 1967, and for the school years 1967-1968, 1968-1969 and 1969-1970, the State Education Department provided financial assistance for her pursuant to section 4407 of the Education Law. Application for aid under section 4407 of the Education Law was approved by Ernest H. Hoeldtke, the District Superintendent of Schools of the First Supervisory District of Erie County, for each of those years, but he refused to approve a similar application under section 4407 for the 1970-1971 school year on the basis that a suitable class for Hilary was available through the BOCES program in her school district.

The salient facts covering the present application for educational assistance are as follows: On August 3Í, 1971, a petition accompanied by supporting documents was filed in this court wherein the petitioner sought an order for the education of her physically handicapped child pursuant to the provisions of section 4403 of the Education Law.

Also filed with said petition was- Form HC-3 of the New York State Division for Handicapped Children which contained the recommendations of Doctor Dorothy Sail Rosenbaum, an independent school psychologist and Doctor Bernard Eisenberg, both of whom said: ‘ ‘ Hilary is a severe brain damaged child [515]*515with, mental retardation. In addition, she demonstrates the anxieties which overlay her neurological deficits.”

In addition, they stated that: “ Hilary should not be subjected to normal ’ school experience.”

In answer to a letter from the Clerk of this court requesting Superintendent Hoeldtke to execute Form HC-3 if he intended to approve the application or, if he did not intend to approve, to so indicate and return the form to the court, Superintendent Hoeldtke replied that: “ We have reviewed this case on several occasions in the past. Our staff advises me that we have a program for this child and the parents have been so advised. For this reason we do not feel we can possibly approve a Court Order.”

Petitioner contended at the hearing that Hilary needs the structured 24-hour-a-day basis program which the St. Joseph’s School conducts; that she has greatly progressed since her attendance there, and that she has not only learned to read and write, but has developed more self-assurance.

Doctor Dorothy Sail Rosenbaum, a clinical school psychologist, testified that she had examined Hilary about a year ago. She felt that the girl needed the protective, structured and routinized residential setting she was receiving at St. Joseph’s and should be continued there. She said that Hilary’s social and educational needs were inseparable, and that if she were removed from that institution at this time she would rapidly deteriorate.

Sister Grace Roll, the Administrator at St. Joseph’s School, téstified in considerable detail concerning the daily program at the school. She stated that the children participate not only in the classroom program but also in many activities after school hours, such as dancing, beauty programs and other activities of a social nature. She felt that Hilary had made considerable progress at the school and would continue to benefit if she were allowed to remain there.

Essentially, it is the respondent’s contention that there is an adequate BOCES program in a public school setting in Erie County which will meet this physically handicapped child’s educational needs.

Burchard Royce, a school psychologist employed by BOCES and assigned to the Cleveland' Hill School in Hilary’s school district, examined the child on April 25, 1969. He testified he gave her several of the usual tests but not a complete psychological examination and concluded that she could function adequately in a BOCES class for the edueable, mentally retarded [516]*516in 1969-1970. It was also his belief that if Hilary did attend á BOOKS class and it did not work that she would not be adversely affected.

He has not examined her since that time.

John W. Doran, the District Principal of the Cleveland Hill School in Hilary’s school district, testified that one of his functions is to make a .recommendation as to school placements for physically handicapped children and submit such recommendation to School Superintendent Hoeldtke. On June 13, 1969 he informed the petitioner by letter that he was recommending that Hilary be continued at St. Joseph’s School for another year. His letter stated, in part:

It is my opinion that your child would be hurt by moving her from St. Joseph’s to one of our own mentally retarded classes. The damage would not be in the program she would receive in school, but as you mentioned to me, in the great emotional upheaval that would result from her change of schools, and more especially her inability to associate constructively at home.
However, I believe that you should make plans now for Hilary to return to our BOCKS program next year. I believe it wise that she be talked to, and prepared in every way for this change.”

On May 18, 1970 he again wrote to the petitioner stating that they would expect Hilary to be enrolled in their BOCKS program beginning with the 1970-1971 school year; that he had no reason to believe that they should change from that plan; and that their BOCKS people and their psychologist recommend that plan.

Ernest H. Hoeldtke, the' District Superintendent of the First Supervisory School District and Executive Director of BOCES, testified thát in his opinion Hilary’s educational needs could be met in a BOCES program in her own school district. He felt that most emotionally disturbed children get along all right in the BÓCES program but conceded that some children are so emotionally disturbed that they cannot participate in a program in a school setting and have to be tutored at home.

He said that no extracurricular activities are provided in the BOCES program and said that he did not agree with Dr. Rosenbaum’s and Sister Grace Roll’s belief that such activities were necessary and essential for Hilary.

Dr. Zelda Kaye, Chief of the Bureau of Special Programs for the Physically Handicapped from the State Education Department’s Division for Handicapped Children, said that [517]*517after examining all available reports, it was her opinion that Hilary could adequately function in the proposed BOCES program. V

She would accept the fact, she said, that there are some children who cannot benefit from BOCES programs but felt such program should be tried in Hilary’s case.

She felt that extra curricular programs such as swimming, dancing and roller-skating — all available at St. Joseph’s — are important to the totql education of a physically handicapped child such as Hilary, but conceded that such programs would not be available to her in the proposed BOCES setting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Lofft
86 Misc. 431 (NYC Family Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 Misc. 2d 513, 342 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hilary-m-nycfamct-1972.