The Right to Ask: What is a Due Process Complaint?
In the world of special education, the “Due Process Complaint” is the fundamental safety net for families provided by federal law. It allows parents to request an impartial hearing when they believe a school district has failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). While this legal tool is often used to resolve disagreements over evaluations or classroom settings, it is also the primary way parents can challenge a school’s unilateral decision to change a child’s placement or deny the specific therapies and instruction required by an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Kristin Treat filed a Due Process Complaint for exactly these reasons—not simply to re-litigate a medical exemption dispute, but to compel the District to do its job immediately. Following a trial court’s rejection of her Article 78 petition, Kristin filed an appeal to keep fighting for her children’s medical exemptions, but the appellate process can take many months to resolve. She could not afford to let her children languish without education during that long legal window.
After the school excluded her children, they also cut off her son’s access to mandated special education services as required under his IEP. Kristin and her husband, who both work full-time jobs, were suddenly forced to become homeschool teachers or pay for private tutors out of pocket. By filing the complaint, Kristin was simply asking a Hearing Officer to ensure the District provided these services now—while the appeal is pending—and used the tax dollars she pays to educate her children, rather than forcing her family to bear the entire financial and educational burden alone.
Using Services as Leverage
The connection between the medical exemption and the denial of special education services is stark. Shortly after Kristin first went public with her story in early-January, the District actually scheduled a meeting to discuss providing special education services for her son. But the moment the trial court judge rejected her Article 78 petition regarding the medical exemption; the District immediately canceled that meeting.
This action reveals a disturbing pattern: the District—and others across the state—are using the validity of medical exemptions as a gatekeeping mechanism for special education services. They are effectively arguing that if a medical exemption is denied, a special needs student loses their right to any services or education from the public school system.
The District’s Aggressive Response
Instead of facing that hearing and explaining to an impartial officer why they refused to provide mandated services to a special needs child they excluded, the Ithaca City School District did something extraordinary. They turned around and sued Kristin Treat in New York State Supreme Court.
The District filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that they have no legal obligation to provide services or even to defend their actions in a Due Process Hearing. Rather than simply handling the proceedings, they are asking a judge to strip this family of their right to access the due process system entirely. Essentially, the District is suing to confirm that educating this child is solely the parents’ financial burden, not the school’s responsibility.
“To see myself listed as a defendant, on behalf of my children, was shocking,” Kristin said. “All we did was ask for our kids’ education.”
The Irony of the District’s Claim for Why it Brought This Lawsuit
The most staggering part of the District’s lawsuit is their justification for it. In their legal filings, the School District claims that they—the government entity—are suffering “irreparable harm.” Their argument? They claim they are being harmed by the cost of legal fees required to defend against Kristin’s requests.
This claim ignores a glaring reality: The District chose to commence this high-stakes litigation in State Court. They chose to escalate a standard administrative dispute into a full-blown lawsuit. While the District complains about the cost of legal process, they are funding their aggressive tactics with taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, the Treat family is suffering the actual financial reality.
“This has been financially devastating for us,” Kristin said. “We are absorbing the expense of private legal counsel, lost work time, and alternative educational arrangements just to fight for our kids. It’s hard to explain to your children that the tax money we pay into the school system is being used to sue their mom instead of educating them.”
The District’s Goal: Silence and Exclusion
This lawsuit does not allege that Kristin or her children are dangerous. It does not allege misconduct. It is a legal maneuver designed to shut down a parent’s advocacy.
“They’re trying to shut me down,” Kristin said. “They don’t want to be forced to provide services, so they’re using the courts to stop me from asking.”
If the District succeeds, it sets a chilling precedent: that a school district can use its unlimited resources to sue parents in State Court simply to avoid facing scrutiny in a special education hearing.
Why She Continues
Despite the financial strain and the emotional toll of having her children excluded from their classrooms and friends for months, Kristin remains focused.
“We didn’t choose to homeschool,” she said. “We were forced into it without preparation, resources, or support. No one gives you a roadmap for this.”
But she refuses to be intimidated by the summons.
“I didn’t choose this fight,” she said. “But I’m not walking away from it. If a district can sue a parent to prevent due process, how many parents will stay silent because they’re afraid? If this can happen to us, it can happen to anyone.”
More Than One Family
This case may have one caption, but its implications extend far beyond one household.
At its core, it raises a fundamental question: what happens when a process designed to protect children is turned into a tool to prevent scrutiny?
Kristin’s story is still unfolding. But one thing is already clear.
Advocacy should never come with a summons.