California OAH special education decision · December 2, 2014
Student v. Fortuna Union High School District et al.
OAH Case No. 2014080602 · ALJ Margaret M. Broussard
Fortuna Union High School District is the district of residence for an adult student with autism living elsewhere, ALJ rules.
Noted in the decision
The case was bifurcated on October 2, 2014. This decision resolves residency only. Prehearing issues 1–4 (whether Kelseyville and Konocti are proper parties, responsibility for compensatory services, and whether Fortuna can require Student to relocate) are preserved for the second phase.
Summary
A 21-year-old man eligible for special education under autism filed for due process against Fortuna Union High School District, Kelseyville Unified School District, and Konocti Unified School District. He was an adult and not under a conservatorship. After turning 18, he moved voluntarily into a supported living arrangement in Kelseyville, and Kelseyville gave him special education until March 2014. He then moved within Konocti's boundaries. Konocti sent him back to Fortuna, where his mother has lived the whole time. Fortuna enrolled him and offered an IEP placement in the city of Fortuna, far from where he lives.
The case was split into two phases. The first phase decided only which district was his district of residence. The parties waived a hearing and submitted stipulated facts and briefs. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Margaret M. Broussard applied Education Code section 56041. Under that law, the last district of residence before a non-conserved student turns 18 stays responsible until the parent moves to a new district. Citing the California Supreme Court's decision in Los Angeles Unified School District v. Garcia, the ALJ found that Fortuna has been his district of residence since August 11, 2012. The ALJ held that Kelseyville's past service and the failure to register him at Fortuna do not affect residency, but they remain possible defenses to liability. Three questions were saved for the second phase: which districts are proper parties, who owes any compensatory services, and whether Fortuna's placement location is appropriate.
Why it matters
The ALJ applied Education Code section 56041 to this non-conserved adult student. The district responsible before he turned 18, where his mother still lives, stayed his district of residence. His voluntary move and another district's services did not change that. Placement location and past services are left for the second phase.
Issues and holdings
- Student prevailedResponsible agency
Issue 1. During the period from August 11, 2012, through the present time, in which school district has Student been a resident for purposes of special education?
Under Education Code section 56041, Fortuna, where Mother has lived throughout, is the district of residence for this non-conserved adult student from August 11, 2012, to the present. Kelseyville's service and the failure to register Student at Fortuna are irrelevant to residency, though they remain possible defenses to liability.
What the ALJ ordered
- Declaratory order: Student's district of residence has been Fortuna Union High School District from August 11, 2012, through the present. Other issues (proper parties, responsibility for compensatory services, location of placement) are preserved for the second phase of the bifurcated case.
Key authorities
Education Code section 56041; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Garcia (2013) 58 Cal.4th 175; Union School Dist. v. Smith; Schaffer v. Weast; J.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist.; Student v. LAUSD (OAH 2007) No. N2007010772
Orders in this case
7 orders issued by OAH in this case, oldest first. Rulings with summaries link to their own pages; routine scheduling orders link to the OAH PDF.
- Denied without prejudice Other orders August 25, 2014
Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Bifurcate
OAH denied without prejudice a joint request to bifurcate Student's residency issue from FAPE claims as premature, directing the parties to raise it with the assigned ALJ at the prehearing conference.
- Ruling Prehearing conference orders October 2, 2014
OAH granted the parties' joint request to decide Student's district of residence first, on a written record, because residency decides which of three districts must provide a FAPE. OAH continued the remaining hearing dates.
- Ruling Evidence and witnesses October 29, 2014
Order to Provide Declarations and Supporting Evidence
OAH ordered all parties to submit sworn declarations or documents within five days because their stipulated facts on Student's residency, submitted for a decision on the papers, had no supporting evidence.
- Granted in part Motions to dismiss January 8, 2015
OAH kept Fortuna and Kelseyville in the case but dismissed Konacti, ruling that a district that actually served and made decisions for Student is a proper party even if not the district of residence.
- Denied Scheduling and continuances January 8, 2015
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH denied the districts' opposed request to continue the hearing. The districts cited a pending motion to dismiss and a wish to mediate, but Student opposed and the case already had several continuances.
- January 12, 2015 Prehearing order sets three issues; closed hearing in Fortuna begins January 20, 2015. PDF
- January 15, 2015 First hearing day vacated; hearing reset to January 21–22, 2015 pending settlement signature page. PDF
- Decision 2014-12-02
Final decision (this page)
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
OAH Case No. 2014080602
STUDENT,
v.
FORTUNA UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT; KELSEYVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND KONOCTI UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
DECISION
Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California, on August 11, 2014, naming Fortuna Union High School District, Kelseyville Unified School District, and Konocti Unified School District. On October 2, 2014, the matter was bifurcated so that the threshold issue of residency could be determined before the substantive claims were adjudicated. At that time, the matter was continued. The parties agreed to waive a hearing on the issue of residency and have the issue decided based upon submission of stipulated facts and briefs. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge Margaret M. Broussard was assigned to this matter.
Tim Poe, Attorney at Law, represented Student. Carl Corbin, Attorney at Law, represented Fortuna, Kelseyville and Konacti.
The parties timely filed stipulated facts and briefs and the matter was submitted.
Accessibility modified document
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
The order following prehearing conference grants the parties’ request to bifurcate this matter to determine the issue of residency for Student. The issues listed in the order following prehearing conference were:
1) While Student’s parent lived within the geographical boundaries of Fortuna Union High School, was Konocti Unified School District or Fortuna Union High School District responsible for providing Student, a non-conserved adult, with a free appropriate public education from the time Student moved into the boundaries of Konocti?
2) While Student’s parent lived within the geographical boundaries of Fortuna, was Kelseyville Union School District or Fortuna responsible for providing Student, a non-conserved adult, with a free appropriate public education from the time Student moved into the boundaries of Kelseyville until the time he relocated within the boundaries of Konocti?
3) If Student is entitled to compensatory education for the time he received special education services from Kelseyville, is Fortuna or Kelseyville responsible for providing the compensatory services?
4) If Fortuna is responsible for providing Student with a FAPE, can Fortuna require Student to relocate back within the boundaries of Fortuna in order to serve Student?
The issues presented for decision in the order following prehearing conference are beyond the scope of residency. As explained further below, this bifurcated decision reflects the residency issue only and concludes that Fortuna has been Student’s district of residence during all relevant time periods. Issues one and two are more properly before OAH in motions to dismiss, once the residency issue has been decided. These issues concern whether Kelseyville and Konacti are proper parties to this matter. Since
Accessibility modified document the parties have not specifically argued their positions in a motion to dismiss after a determination was made regarding Student’s residency, these issues are preserved for the second part of the bifurcated matter. Issue three is not ripe for determination until a determination is made regarding whether Student is entitled to compensatory services and therefore is also preserved for the second part of the bifurcated matter. Finally, issue four concerns the appropriate location for Student’s placement. This must be analyzed as a part of the offer of FAPE from Fortuna, which Student has put at issue in the second part of the bifurcated hearing. The appropriateness of the location of the placement offer must be analyzed along with the rest of the offer and therefore, this issue is also preserved for the second part of the bifurcated hearing. Therefore, the remaining issue in this bifurcated decision is Student’s residency during the relevant time periods. The other issues are preserved for the second part of the bifurcated hearing and some of the issues may be ripe for determination through prehearing motions.
ISSUE 1
During the period from August 11, 2012, through the present time, in which school district has Student been a resident for purposes of special education?
SUMMARY OF DECISION
Student has been a resident of Fortuna Union High School District from August 11, 2012, through the present time.
The issue has been rephrased or reorganized for clarity. The ALJ has authority to redefine a party’s issues, so long as no substantive changes are made. (J.W. v. Fresno
Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443
Accessibility modified document
FACTUAL FINDINGS
JURISDICTION
1.
Student is a 21-year-old man who has been eligible for special education services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act since November 14, 1997, under the eligibility category of autism. Student has not been legally conserved. Mother has lived in Fortuna, California, at all relevant time periods.
STUDENT’S LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
2.
Prior to Student’s 18th birthday, he was privately placed at [private placement name and location redacted]
from September 2010 until he turned 18 years-old [date redacted] . The school district in which the private placement was located provided Student with his special education services.
3.
When Student turned 18-years-old, he moved to Kelseyville, California, into a supported living situation. This placement was voluntary and not an agency placement pursuant to Education Code section 48204(a)(1). At no time after Student’s 18th birthday was he placed in a licensed children’s institution, been a foster child, been subject to an inter-district transfer permit, been emancipated, been in the home of a caregiving adult with a caregiver affidavit, or resided in a state hospital. 4.
Student applied for and received special education and related services from Kelseyville beginning shortly after he moved to Kelseyville until March 24, 2014. On this date, Student moved to a new residence within the boundaries of Konacti. 5.
Konacti referred Student back to Fortuna, based upon its determination that Student was a resident of Fortuna. Konacti has never provided Student with special education.
Accessibility modified document
6.
Student enrolled in Fortuna and was offered an IEP placement located in the city of Fortuna. Student continues to live in Konacti, which is located a substantial distance from Fortuna.
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION – LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER THE IDEA 2
1.
This decision is rendered under the IDEA, its regulations, and California statutes and regulations intended to implement it. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 (2006)2 et seq.; Ed. Code, § 56000, et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3000 et seq.) The main purposes of the IDEA are (1) to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living, and (2) to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1); see Ed. Code, § 56000, subd. (a).)
2.
The IDEA affords parents and local educational agencies the procedural protection of an impartial due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a FAPE to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511; Ed. Code, §§ 56501, 56502, 56505; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082.) The party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consents. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) At the hearing, the party filing the complaint
Unless otherwise indicated, the legal citations in the introduction and in the sections that follow are incorporated by reference into the analysis of each issue decided below.
Accessibility modified document has the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 56-62 [126 S.Ct. 528] (Schaffer).) In this case, Student, as the complaining party, bears the burden of proof.
ISSUE: WHAT IS STUDENT’S DISTRICT OF RESIDENCY FROM AUGUST 11, 2014, TO
THE PRESENT?
3.
The parties have asked for a determination of residency for Student. This issue has arisen because while his parent has continued to reside in Fortuna, Student has lived in both Konacti and Kelseyville and was served on an IEP by Kelseyville during the some of the relevant time period.
4.
For non-conserved pupils, the last district of residence in effect prior to the pupil’s attaining the age of majority shall become and remain as the responsible local educational agency, as long as and until the parent or parents relocate to a new district of residence. At that time, the new district of residence shall become the responsible local education agency. (See Education Code §56041(a).) Residency under the IDEA is measured by “normal” standards. (See 20 U.S.C. §1413 (a)(1); see also, Union Sch. Dist. V.
Smith (9th Cir. 1994) 15 F.3d 1519, 1525, and Student v. LAUSD (OAH April 17, 2007) No. N2007010772.)
5.
The California Supreme Court has held that the purpose of Education
Code §56041 should not be construed narrowly and that the statute follows the general state educational policy of assigning funding responsibility to the school district in which the pupil’s parent resides. (Los Angeles Unified School District v. Garcia (2013) 58 Cal.4th 175,189-192)
6.
Student is a non-conserved adult under the age of 22. Mother has continuously resided in Fortuna, California for the time period at issue in this case. Therefore, Fortuna has been the District of residence for Student. The effects of Kelseyville serving Student under an individualized education program and Student’s
Accessibility modified document failure to register Student at Fortuna are not relevant to the determination of residency, but remain available as possible defenses to any liability imposed later if a denial of FAPE is determined.
ORDER
Student’s district of residence has been Fortuna from August 11, 2012, through the present time.
RIGHT TO APPEAL
This Decision is the final administrative determination and is binding on all parties. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (h).) Any party has the right to appeal this Decision to a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days of receiving it. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (k).)
Dated: December 2, 2014
/s/
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings
Accessibility modified document