Background
X.M., a child eligible for special education, lived with his father in Claremont while his paternal grandmother remained his guardian. After the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families filed neglect petitions in 2024, it obtained protective supervision and later legal custody of X.M. DCYF placed him in foster settings and at Nashua Children’s Home, then ultimately obtained authorization for a residential placement in Maine.
DCYF joined the Claremont School District in the neglect case as the allegedly legally liable school district. CSD later sought dismissal, disputing that X.M. was a Claremont resident when he was placed in a home for children and thus disputing that it was the “sending district” responsible for special-education costs. The circuit court denied dismissal and reconsideration, determining that X.M. resided in Claremont for those purposes.
The Court’s Holding
The New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated those rulings and remanded. It held that the circuit court lacked statutory authority to decide X.M.’s residency for the purpose of assigning financial liability for special education.
RSA 169-C:20 permits the court to join a legally liable school district for limited purposes concerning disability determinations and review of special-education services. It does not authorize the court to decide residency, identify the financially liable district, or resolve a liability dispute. Under RSA 193:12, V-b and VI, a residency dispute between DCYF and a school district involving a child in DCYF custody must proceed first through the involved superintendents and, if unresolved, to the Department of Education commissioner, who decides residency and school-attendance cost liability.
Key Takeaways
- A family division cannot determine a child’s school residency to allocate special-education financial responsibility absent statutory authority.
- RSA 169-C:20’s joinder authority is limited and does not make the court the adjudicator of school-district liability.
- For qualifying disputes involving children in DCYF custody, DCYF must use the administrative process in RSA 193:12, V-b and VI.
Why It Matters
The decision places residency-based special-education liability disputes in the DOE administrative process, even when they arise within a child-protection case. School districts and DCYF should not seek to resolve that issue through a chapter 169-C court order.
The court did not reach CSD’s separate argument that DOE becomes responsible for special-education costs when a child is placed out of state, because the administrative residency determination could make that question unnecessary.