California OAH special education order · October 29, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013100380 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it reached back to 2008 without saying when Torrance became responsible for Student's education after his move to Starview Adolescent Center.
Summary
The District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's complaint. The complaint raised eight issues about assessment and special education services, mainly mental health and behavioral services. OAH found the facts insufficient because the allegations went back to 2008, the two high schools named in the complaint are in Los Angeles Unified School District, and the complaint never said when Torrance became the responsible agency after Student arrived at Starview Adolescent Center. The proposed resolutions, compensatory education and assessment in all areas of suspected disability, were adequate. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
When a student has moved between districts or into a residential or treatment placement, the complaint must say when the named district became responsible for the student's education. Otherwise the district cannot tell which time period it must defend.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2013100380
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On October 10, 2013, Parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) naming the Torrance Unified School District (District). On October 25, 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 eight issues for hearing, all of which allege that the District purportedly failed to appropriately assess Student in all areas of suspected disability and provide him with adequate special education services, mainly mental health and behavioral services. Student fails to allege sufficient facts in his complaint as the allegations go back to 2008 and Student fails to allege when Torrance became the responsible educational agency upon his arrival to Starview Adolescent Center as the two high schools mentioned in the complaint are within the Los Angeles Unified School District. Therefore, Student has failed to allege sufficient facts to put the District on notice as to the issues for hearing because the District does not know when it purportedly became responsible for Student’s education and denied Student a FAPE.
Student’s proposed resolutions are that the District provide compensatory education services and assess Student in all areas of suspected disability. 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 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).
complaint are well-defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II). 8
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 United
States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
Dated: October 29, 2013 /s/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 8 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.