California OAH special education decision · March 22, 2006
Student v. Alum Rock Union School District
OAH Case No. 2006020179 · ALJ Keith J. Kirchubel
Alum Rock Union prevails; mediation agreement bars a parent's challenge to a May 2005 manifestation determination.
Noted in the decision
On February 23, 2006, ALJ Peter Paul Castillo sustained the District's notice of insufficiency as to Contentions 2–6. Student was given 14 days to amend and did not, so those contentions were dismissed without prejudice in this decision.
Summary
A 12-year-old student's mother, representing him herself with a Spanish interpreter, filed for due process against Alum Rock Union School District. The student was already eligible for special education. OAH held an expedited hearing on one claim: whether the District's May 2005 manifestation determination was appropriate. That determination followed an April 29, 2005 incident at school. The resulting discipline lasted more than ten days, which made it a change of placement. The District found the conduct was not a manifestation of the student's disability. The ALJ noted the District's conflicting meeting dates precluded the mother from attending.
The family had already filed earlier due process cases. In June 2005, with counsel present, the parties reached a mediation agreement. The District agreed not to seek expulsion, and the family agreed to dismiss the pending cases. The agreement said it resolved all claims about the student's educational placement through its date. The mother testified that a page was forged and that the version she signed did not cover the manifestation determination. The ALJ said OAH has no power to rule on whether the agreement is valid. She had signed pages stating the agreement was seven pages long, and her attorney had also signed. The ALJ dismissed the claim with prejudice. Five other claims had been found legally insufficient and were never amended, so the ALJ dismissed them without prejudice.
Why it matters
A signed mediation agreement that resolves "all claims" through its date can block a later due process claim on a covered topic, including a manifestation determination. The ALJ also stated that OAH does not have jurisdiction to rule on whether a mediation agreement is valid.
Issues and holdings
- BarredDiscipline
Issue 1. Whether the manifestation determination reached by the District in May 2005 was appropriate.
A June 2005 mediation agreement that resolved all claims about Student's educational placement through its date covered the May 2005 manifestation determination, so the claim was dismissed with prejudice; OAH lacks jurisdiction to rule on the agreement's validity.
- Dismissed / withdrawnThreshold and jurisdiction
Issue 2-6. Contentions No. 2 through No. 6 of the Complaint, which an earlier order found legally insufficient.
After a notice of insufficiency was sustained and Student did not amend within 14 days, Contentions 2 through 6 were dismissed without prejudice.
What the ALJ ordered
- Contention 1 dismissed with prejudice; Contentions 2–6 dismissed without prejudice.
Key authorities
20 U.S.C. §1415(k); 20 U.S.C. §1415(e)(2)(F); Ed. Code §56500.3(f); Ed. Code §56507(d)
People named in the decision
- Donita Grace, District employee; witness on manifestation determination scheduling, Alum Rock Union School District
- Dr. David Gilbertson, witness regarding mediation agreement, Not stated
- Ritu Goswamy, Student's former attorney at mediation, Not stated
- Alex Teran, Spanish language interpreter
- Peter Paul Castillo, ALJ who sustained notice of insufficiency, Office of Administrative Hearings
Get new OAH special education decisions by email
A weekly Monday-morning digest of new California OAH due process decisions, each with a short plain-English summary from Vanaman German LLP.
You'll get an email asking you to confirm. Unsubscribe anytime. Subscribing does not create an attorney-client relationship.Full text of the decision
Published text of the OAH decision. Student and family details have been removed and marked in brackets, and page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVISION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
STUDENT,
Petitioner,
OAH CASE NO. N 2006020179
v.
ALUM ROCK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
DECISION
On March 9, 2006, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) convened an expedited hearing in the above-captioned matter pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415(k) regarding Contention No. 1 of Petitioner’s due process hearing request (Complaint) dated February 6, 2006: whether the manifestation determination reached by Respondent Alum Rock Union School District (District) in May, 2005 was appropriate. The matter was heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Keith J. Kirchubel. Petitioner student was represented by his mother. Respondent District was represented by attorney Tracy Tibbals. Alex Teran was duly sworn and served as Spanish language interpreter for mother.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
1.
Student is a twelve year-old male student attending school in the District.
Prior to April 29, 2005, Student had been identified as eligible for special education services and was receiving those services pursuant to various Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Accessibility modified document
2.
On April 29, 2005, Student was involved in an incident at school that resulted in him being disciplined by the District. The duration of discipline exceeded more than ten days during the then-current school year and thus constituted a change of placement.
3.
On May 2, 2005, the District convened an emergency IEP team meeting to discuss the incident giving rise to the discipline and to schedule a manifestation determination as set forth in 20 U.S.C. §(k)(1)(E)-(F).
4.
In May, 2005, the District conducted a manifestation determination regarding the incident that occurred on April 29, 2005. Mother was not present at the manifestation determination.1 5.
On or about May 9, 2005, the District determined that Student was appropriately placed on April 29, 2005, and that his conduct associated with the incident that day was not a manifestation of his disability.
6.
Prior to June 9, 2005, petitioner filed a due process hearing request with the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO), challenging inter alia the manifestation determination.
7.
On June 9, 2006, the parties participated in mediation. At the conclusion of the mediation, an agreement resulted whereby the District agreed “not to pursue
The manifestation determination was originally scheduled for May 12, 2005.
District employee Donita Grace testified that the date was changed to May 11, 2005, to accommodate Mother’s schedule, although she did not document the change until more than two weeks later. In a filing dated February 21, 2006, counsel for respondent represented that the manifestation determination actually occurred on May 9, 2005. These compounded contradictions resulted in Petitioner’s parent being precluded from the hearing.
Accessibility modified document expulsion” of Petitioner based on the incident of April 29, 2005, and Petitioner agreed to dismiss the two pending SEHO actions.2 8.
Although Mother challenged the validity of the mediation agreement,3 she acknowledged that she had signed two pages (page 3 and page 7) each of which identified the complete agreement as a seven page document. Moreover, Mother was represented by counsel at the mediation, and her counsel signed in three places as well, including immediately below the allegedly forged signature.
9.
By its terms, the mediation agreement “is a complete and final agreement”
that “resolves all claims related to [Petitioner’s] educational placement through the date of [the] agreement.”
DISCUSSION
This expedited hearing was convened to decide Contention No. 1 of Petitioner’s Complaint dated February 6, 2006. The ALJ finds that the agreement disposes of the issue of the manifestation determination. Mother signed the agreement on at least two pages, both of which indicated that the agreement was seven pages in length. There was no testimony from the mediator or Petitioner’s counsel at the time, Ritu Goswamy, that Petitioner did not consent to the terms of the agreement pertaining to the
The mediation agreement was admitted as Respondent’s Exhibit A. Mother and
Dr. David Gilbertson offered evidence in the form of sworn testimony regarding the agreement reached at the mediation.
the
She testified that her signature was forged on page four and that the version of agreement she signed did not address resolution of the issue(s) surrounding the manifestation determination. However, the OAH does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the agreement. (20 U.S.C. §1415(e)(2)(F)(iii), Ca Ed Code 56500.3(f).)
Accessibility modified document resolution of all prior claims. By law, a valid mediation agreement is binding upon and enforceable against the parties thereto. (20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(2((F)) Pursuant to its terms, the agreement resolves all claims regarding Petitioner’s educational program prior to June 9, 2005. This necessarily includes the claims regarding the manifestation determination of May, 2005. Accordingly, Contention No. 1 of Petitioner’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.4
ORDER
1.
OAH Case Number N2006020179 is dismissed with prejudice as to
Petitioner’s Contention No. 1, and without prejudice as to Contentions No. 2 through No. 6, inclusive.
PREVAILING PARTY
2.
Education Code section 56507, subdivision (d) requires that the hearing decision indicate the extent to which each party has prevailed on each issue heard and decided. The District prevailed on the issue heard and decided.
RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION
The parties to this case have the right to appeal this Decision to a court of competent jurisdiction. If an appeal is made, it must be made within ninety days of receipt of this Decision. (Ed. Code §56505, subd. (k).)
On February 23, 2006, ALJ Peter Paul Castillo sustained a Notice of Insufficiency filed by the District as to Contentions No. 2 through No. 6 of the Complaint. Petitioner was granted 14 days to amend the Complaint. He failed to do so and, therefore, Contentions No. 2 through No. 6 are hereby dismissed without prejudice.
Accessibility modified document
Dated: March 22, 2006 _____________________________
KEITH J. KIRCHUBEL
Administrative Law Judge Special Education Division Office of Administrative Hearings
Accessibility modified document