California OAH special education order · March 25, 2013
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2013020687 · ALJ Margaret Broussard
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student did not show any dispute over placement, and District swore it was continuing to provide services in Student's current placement.
Summary
Student filed a motion for stay put in a case brought by Desert Sands Unified School District. District opposed, saying there was no stay put dispute because it was already implementing Student's agreed-upon placement, and it backed this with a sworn declaration. OAH denied the motion because a stay put order is generally not needed unless there is a dispute over placement, and Student did not allege one. Student may file a new request that explains the dispute and the specific stay put terms sought.
Why it matters
A stay put motion should clearly describe how the district is failing to maintain the last agreed-upon and implemented placement. Without that, OAH may deny it as unnecessary, especially if the district swears it is complying.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH CASE NO. 2013020687
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
v. STAY PUT
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On March 19, 2013, Student filed a motion for stay put. On March 22, 2013, Desert Sands Unified School District (District) filed an opposition on the grounds that there is no dispute regarding stay put because District is implementing Student’s agreed to stay put placement.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006) 1; Ed. Code, § 56505 subd.
(d).) This is referred to as “stay put.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student's individualized education program (IEP), which has been implemented prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v.
Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
Student is entitled to remain in his last agreed upon and implemented placement while a dispute is pending and an order for stay put is generally not required unless a dispute over placement exists. Here, Student has not alleged whether a dispute exists as to Student’s placement and services while the dispute is pending. District has pledged by sworn declaration to continue providing services within Student’s current educational placement.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for stay put is denied. If there is a dispute that exists as to that placement, Student may file a request for stay put with more specificity as to the nature of the dispute and the terms of stay put. The motion for stay put is denied.
All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 edition, unless otherwise indicated.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2013 /s/
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings