California OAH special education order · July 31, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013070819 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave enough facts about assessments, goals, services, and the unclear IEP offer to put the District on notice, and proposed well-defined resolutions.
Summary
The District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, which alleged failures to assess in all areas of suspected disability, inadequate goals and services, and failure to make a clear IEP offer. OAH found the complaint had enough facts about Student's unique needs, the needed assessments, and the offers at issue to put the District on notice. The proposed resolutions (compensatory education, specific assessments, a one-to-one ABA aide, and staff training) were well-defined. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that explains the student's needs, what assessments are needed and why, and what specific remedies are requested will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads pleadings liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2013070819
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
PASO ROBLES JOINT UNIFIED COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On July 18, 2013, Parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) naming Paso Robles Joint Unified School District (District). On July 30, 2013, the District 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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 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’s complaint contains two issues, with each containing several sub-issues, which allege that the District failed to assess Student in all areas of suspected disabilities, drafted inadequate goals and did not offer adequate services to meet his unique needs.
Without going through each of the sub-issues, the complaint contains sufficient allegations as to his unique needs, the assessments the District needed to conduct and why, the educational offers at issue and the reasons supporting his need for the requested assessments and different goals and services. Additionally, the complaint contains adequate facts as to the District’s purported failure to make a clear individual educational program offer.
Accordingly, Student alleges sufficient facts supporting these claims in his complaint to put the District on notice, and therefore the complaint is sufficiently pled.
Student’s proposed resolutions are that the District provide specified compensatory education, specific assessments, a one-to-one applied behavior analysis aide, and staff training. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well-defined requests that meet the 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).
statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
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 31, 2013 /s/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings