California OAH special education order · March 12, 2014
Order Granting Without Prejudice Request to Dismiss Complaint of Student's Temporary Conservator
OAH Case No. 2014010376 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH dismissed an adult Student's due process complaint without prejudice because Parent, appointed temporary conservator with sole educational decision-making rights, asked to dismiss it, despite Student's attorney's objection.
Summary
Student, who is over 18, filed a due process complaint against the District. Parent was later named Student's temporary conservator by the Superior Court, with the right to make educational decisions, and asked OAH to dismiss the case. The District did not oppose. Student's attorney challenged the basis of the conservatorship, said she could not reach Student, and asked OAH to wait until a superior court hearing on April 1, 2014. OAH held that it has no jurisdiction to review whether a court-ordered conservatorship is proper. Because Parent currently holds Student's educational rights, OAH found she had authority to dismiss, and it dismissed the case without prejudice.
Why it matters
Once a court appoints a conservator with educational decision-making rights for an adult student, that conservator controls the student's due process case, even over the attorney's objection. Any challenge to the conservatorship has to be brought in superior court, not at OAH.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Ed. Code, § 56000
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
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:
STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2014010376
v. ORDER GRANTING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE REQUEST TO DISMISS
BREA-OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT OF STUDENT’S
DISTRICT. TEMPORARY CONSERVATOR
On January 13, 2014, Student filed a request for due process (complaint) naming the Brea-Olinda Unified School District (District). Student is over the age of 18. At the time he filed his complaint, he was attending Devereuex, a residential treatment center in Colorado funded by the District pursuant to Student’s individualized education program.
On February 28, 2014, Student’s mother filed a request to dismiss Student’s complaint, based upon the fact that she had been named the temporary conservator for Student, which included the right to make educational decisions for him. Mother did not want the instant case to proceed. Mother attached a copy of the Superior Court letters of conservatorship to substantiate her request. However, because there was no indication that Mother had served Student or his attorney with her request, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) served Mother’s papers on counsel for Student on March 6, 2014.
On March 5, 2014, the District filed a notice of non-opposition to Mother’s request for dismissal.
On March 11, 2014, counsel for Student filed a response to Mother’s request on behalf of Student. In the response, counsel contests the bases of Mother’s temporary conservatorship. She also states that it appears Student is no longer attending Devereuex, and that she has been unable to communicate with him despite many attempts to do so.
Counsel asks that this matter be continued until after April 1, 2014, when a superior court hearing is scheduled concerning the appointment of a probate conservator for Student.
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education” (FAPE), and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) A party has the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a) [party has a right to present a complaint regarding matters involving proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child; the provision of a FAPE to a child; the refusal of a parent or guardian to consent to an assessment of a child;
or a disagreement between a parent or guardian and the public education agency as to the availability of a program appropriate for a child, including the question of financial responsibility].) The jurisdiction of OAH is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.) OAH does not have jurisdiction to determine the propriety of a court order placing an individual under conservatorship.
As of now, Mother is Student’s conservator and has been given the sole right to make educational decisions for him. She does not wish to proceed with this case and has requested, on Student’s behalf, to dismiss it. Mother has the authority to do so as Student’s conservator. Therefore, Mother’s request for dismissal of this case is granted without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 12, 2014 /s/
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings