California OAH special education order · July 12, 2013
Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Sufficient as Plead
OAH Case No. 2013061085 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH found Student's child-find complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's challenge because the complaint included over 25 pages of facts, including private assessments finding Student eligible for special education.
Summary
The District filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Student's complaint lacked enough facts to support the claim that the District failed to identify Student as a child with a disability over the past two years. OAH disagreed and found the complaint sufficient. The complaint contained more than 25 pages of facts, including private assessments from the past two to three years concluding Student qualified for special education, and a detailed description of Student's academic, social, and emotional problems at school. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A detailed complaint that describes the child's struggles and cites private assessments will hold up against a district's sufficiency challenge. OAH reads pleading requirements liberally, so families should put their key facts in the complaint from the start.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013061085
v. ORDER DETERMINING DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT TO BE
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL SUFFICIENT AS PLEAD
DISTRICT.
On June 24, 2013, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming the Torrance Unified School District (District).
On July 12, 2013, the District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 2 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. 3 These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the 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 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. 4 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 5 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. 6 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 7
DISCUSSION
Student raises one issue for hearing: Whether the District failed to identify Student as a child with a disability during the past two years and continuing although the District was aware of Student’s academic, social, and emotional struggles? The District, in its NOI, contends that Student does not provide a sufficient factual basis for this contention.
However, the District’s position is not well-taken. Student’s complaint contains over 25 pages of factual contentions, including a recitation of private assessments obtained by Student’s family over the course of the last two to three years, in which the assessors concluded that Student qualified for special education. Student also provides a lengthy factual description of his academic, social, and emotional problems at school as a basis for his allegations.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are therefore sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and provides adequate related facts about the problem sufficient enough to permit the District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation, and, if necessary, to present a defense at hearing.
4 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
5 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
6 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.].
7 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).
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: July 12, 2013 /s/
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings