For Hannah

by Nyle Dolera

My daughter, Hannah, was a beautiful and vibrant little girl who unexpectedly passed away on December 25, 2013. At the time of her death, I had been awaiting a due process decision by a hearing officer with the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) for more than six months.

My due process complaint was filed originally on August 3, 2012. The reasons for the due process are numerous, but suffice it to say that Hannah had made very little educational progress until Dr. JD came into her life in December 2011. This marks the date when I first hired Dr. JD to work with my daughter, who at the time was nearly beyond help. Since that time, however, Hannah made vast improvements not only educationally, but also physically. She changed from a very sick and frail little girl, to a healthy and happy one.

Dr. JD at first worked with Hannah only at home and in the community. Very soon, we tried to implement Dr. JD’s recommendations at her school, Puohala Elementary in the Windward District, but we faced one road block after another. We had numerous IEP meetings, during which Hannah’s program was dissected and debated about. After months of these meetings that led to nowhere, I finally made the decision to move Hannah to another school, Aina Haina Elementary in the Honolulu District, beginning August 2012. Once there, Dr. JD was able to successfully work with the school and was allowed to implement her very specific recommendations for Hannah’s program. This required Dr. JD to be on the Aina Haina campus several days per week. Dr. JD was instrumental in training Hannah’s teachers and other school personnel, as well as developing her educational program. This period of collaboration lasted until July 29, 2013.

On the morning of July 29, 2013, the Aina Haina Elementary principal, Mr. BB, notified me that Hannah’s private service provider, Dr. JD, was banned effective immediately due to a Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) memo dated July 31, 2012 from Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi. The memo stated that, “…service provided by anyone other than a Department employee or Department contracted provider may not be delivered during the school day on a school campus…” No hint was made to me from the school administrators that they were considering this action even though I was on campus daily.

According to Mr. BB, on July 26, 2013, the directive to remove Dr. JD was given to him from Mr. CN, the complex area superintendent, after Mr. CN had consulted with the Hawaii Attorney General’s office, along with another high ranking HIDOE administrator who I believe was from the Windward District. Mr. BB stated that Mr. CN prohibited him from providing me with anything in writing explaining the HIDOE’s reasons for this action. Because Dr. JD was prohibited from working with Hannah at school, Hannah was forced to transition into a new grade, new program, new surroundings, and new providers unfamiliar with her needs on the first day of the new school year (July 29, 2013).

I believe the reason for banning Dr. JD from the Aina Haina School campus, and preventing her from being able to continue to work with Hannah on the school campus is due to my due process complaint. As I stated previously, I filed my due process complaint on August 3, 2012. A resolution meeting was held on August 10, 2012, and negotiations continued for five months with no resolution. During the negotiations, the HIDOE refused to reimburse me for any of Hannah’s services from the 2012-2013 school year, despite Hannah’s tremendous progress under Dr. JD’s recommendations. Dr. JD helped Hannah grow and gain independence, as well as experience learning in a classroom alongside her non-disabled peers. In two short years, Dr. JD was able to achieve what the HIDOE was unable to for the four years prior to Dr. JD’s arrival.

The hearing itself was finally scheduled for November and December 2012, but the actual hearing did not take place until February 12-14, April 1, 3-5, and June 4-6 of 2013. During the hearing, personnel from her former school, Puohala Elementary, testified that Hannah had been strapped in a chair sometimes daily. This news was not a complete surprise to me, for during an August 2012 IEP meeting, it was admitted that Hannah had been strapped into her chair at Puohala Elementary while the school completed Hannah’s speech and psychological assessments. All this occurred without my consent.

Witnesses from both sides took the stand, including Dr. JD, who testified on Hannah’s behalf for more than six hours. In total, the testimonies lasted 10 days, stretched out over four months. This now took us to the very end of the 2012-2013 school year, with the 2013-2014 school year scheduled to begin on July 29, 2013.
With the due process decision unknown, and the prospect of another school year right around the corner, I believe the HIDOE decided to prevent any further claims for reimbursement for Dr. JD’s services by simply banning her from the Aina Haina School campus. The use of the memo, however, was entirely selective, as Dr. JD was allowed to continue providing private services to another special education student at Niu Valley Middle, another HIDOE school just a few miles away. In fact, Mr. BB was named the interim principal of Niu Valley Middle during this same time frame. He, therefore, was entirely aware of this conflict but chose to allow the discrimination to continue.

To add even further emotional and financial strain on me, and more importantly further harm to Hannah’s education and well-being, the due process decision was delayed beyond what would be considered reasonable. Although the hearing decision was scheduled for August 7, 2013, it was extended at least 5-6 times, with the decision scheduled now for February 16, 2014. And in yet another strange turn of events, the hearing officer on the case suddenly retired on December 31, 2013 without any explanation and without having completed her decision. It is interesting to note that the same hearing officer had very recently completed a 63 paged report on a highly public abuse case at another DOE elementary school. That decision was reported by a local news station on January 2, 2014.

Perhaps a reason for the events in my daughter’s case is due to the conflict of interest that exists between the Hawaii Attorney General’s (AG) office, the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA), and the Hawaii DOE. The Hawaii AG’s office provided an assistant AG, Mr. MT, as the HIDOE’s legal counsel in my due process case. The Hawaii DCCA employs the hearing officers who preside over the due process hearings. Since Hawaii’s AG’s office and the DCCA work together, they can unnecessarily delay or even influence or pressure a hearing officer’s decision, and perhaps even pressure a hearing officer in an untimely resignation. The involvement of high ranking HIDOE administrators, along with AG’s from the Hawaii AG’s office in the use of the July 31, 2012 HIDOE memo against Hannah is inappropriate. The relationships that exist in the Hawaii’s AG’s office, the Hawaii DOE, and the Hawaii DCCA do not allow the parents impartiality in their due process cases. The system that exists in Hawaii is one that lends an unfair advantage to the DOE, a system that can easily be manipulated in order to retaliate against parents.

It is too late to help my beloved daughter, Hannah; however it is not too late to help the other special education children of the state of Hawaii, and demand that changes be made in this horrible and discriminatory system.