California OAH special education order · January 23, 2014
Order Granting Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2014010335 · ALJ Susan Ruff
OAH granted Student's stay put motion, ordering the District to keep providing services under the last agreed-upon IEP. Whether Student still lives in the District is a merits question that requires a hearing.
Summary
Student asked to remain in Student's District placement while the due process case is pending. The District and the other respondents opposed, arguing that Student no longer resides in the District. OAH granted the motion because deciding residency would be a ruling on the merits, which must come after a hearing, not on a motion. The District must continue the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP placement and services while the case is pending.
Why it matters
A district cannot avoid stay put by claiming a student has moved out of the district when residency is the very issue in dispute. The student keeps the last implemented IEP until a hearing decides the question.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042
- 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2014010335
v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
STAY PUT
ALTA LOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET
AL.
On January 17, 2014, Student filed a motion for stay put. On January 22, 2014, the Alta Loma School District (District) and the other respondents filed an opposition to the motion. On January 23, 2014, Student filed a reply.
APPLICABLE LAW
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.)
In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042.)
DISCUSSION
The key dispute in this case involves whether Student currently resides in the District and whether the District is required to provide Student with an education. Student contends that the District is required to educate Student. The District and other respondents disagree.
All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 edition, unless otherwise indicated.
Student’s motion for stay put requests that Student be permitted to remain in Student’s placement in the District during the pendency of this due process case. The District opposes the request on the ground that Student no longer resides in the District.
Under these circumstances, the District must continue to provide Student with the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP placement and services while the current case is pending.
Anything else would require a decision on the merits of this case. Such a decision must be made after an administrative hearing, not on a motion.
ORDER
The District shall continue to provide Student with educational services in accordance with Student’s last agreed-upon and implemented IEP while this case is pending.
Dated: January 23, 2014 /s/
SUSAN RUFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings