California OAH special education order · February 5, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014010791 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that missing time frames, unlabeled procedural versus substantive claims, and disputed facts are hearing issues, and that requesting residential treatment placement is an adequate proposed resolution.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging the complaint of an 18-year-old Student who holds her own educational rights. District argued the complaint did not give time frames for the alleged FAPE denials, did not separate procedural from substantive claims, alleged disputed facts, and lacked a specific proposed resolution. OAH found the complaint gave District enough notice of the issues, which centered on extreme behaviors and emotional needs District allegedly failed to address. OAH held that District's points could be raised at hearing and that the request for residential treatment center placement met the proposed-resolution requirement.
Why it matters
Under the liberal pleading standard, a complaint does not have to state exact time frames or label each claim as procedural or substantive to go forward. A district disputing the facts is not a reason to find a complaint insufficient.
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 (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. 2014010791
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On January 22, 2014 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming Chino Valley Unified School District (District) as the respondent.
On February 3, 2014, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to the 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student alleges she is an 18-year-old holder of her own educational rights, who has not yet graduated from high school. She further alleges that she suffers from extreme behaviors and emotional concerns that were not adequately addressed by District. District’s NOI contends that the time frame of the alleged denials of FAPE are not specified; that Student does not delineate which of her allegations are procedural and which are substantive; and District also disputes the facts as alleged. All District’s contentions may be addressed at hearing, but do not render the complaint insufficient, as stated. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient.
District further contends that Student’s proposed resolution is not specified, however the complaint requests placement in a residential treatment center (RTC). A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to 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).
the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to her 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: February 05, 2014 /s/
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings