California OAH special education order · March 18, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013030123 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its detailed facts and four FAPE issues, covering assessments, goals and services, records access, and Spanish translation of IEPs, gave the District enough notice to respond.
Summary
The District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It set out extensive factual background going back to 2007 and alleged issues about inadequate neuropsychological, autism, and behavior assessments; inadequate behavioral and social skills goals, services, and small group instruction; failure to give Parents complete educational records; and failure to translate IEPs into Spanish. The complaint also listed proposed resolutions, so all hearing dates were confirmed, and the District's separate motion to dismiss was left for a later order.
Why it matters
A complaint that clearly lists each issue, gives supporting facts, and states the remedies sought will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads complaints liberally. Claims that Parents were shut out of IEP decisions because documents were not translated into Spanish are proper issues to raise.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013030123
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On March 1, 2013, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming Stockton Unified School District (District) as the respondent.
On March 14, District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint. District timely re-filed the NOI on March 15, 2013. 2
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 3 The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the requirements of Title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
A complaint is sufficient if it contains: (1) a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed initiation or change concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child; (2) facts relating to the problem; and (3) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time. 4 These 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under Title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
2 On March 14 and 15, 2013, District also filed a Motion to Dismiss, which will be addressed by separate Order.
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
4 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. 5 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 6 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the IDEA and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. 7 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 8
DISCUSSION
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student states extensive factual background relating to his educational program since first being assessed in 2007, and alleges four separate issues: First, that District denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
by failing to appropriately asses him in all areas of suspected disability, specifically by failing to perform an appropriate neuropsychological assessment, autism assessment, and behavior assessment; second, that District denied Student a FAPE by failing to tailor his goals and educational program to his unique needs, specifically by not providing sufficient behavioral and social skills goals and services, and small group instruction; fourth and fifth, that District denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parents with a full copy of Student’s educational records, and by failing to translate Student’s individualized education programs (IEP’s) into Spanish, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding Student’s education. Student’s proposed resolutions 5 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
6 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
7 Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, No. 06-cv-0215- JL) 2009 WL 2957991 at p.3 [nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F. Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260; Sammons v. Polk County School Bd.
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, No. 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 at p. 3[nonpub.
opn.] ; but cf. M.S.-G. v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, at p. 3[nonpub. opn.].
8 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006).
include independent educational evaluations (IEE’s); compensatory education including educational therapy, counseling and private behavioral services; placement at a nonpublic school; provision of complete records; and attorney’s fees. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under Title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
Dated: March 18, 2013 /s/
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings