California OAH special education order · March 24, 2014
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss El Dorado County Charter Special Education Local Plan Area as a Party
OAH Case No. 2014030133 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH dismissed El Dorado County Charter SELPA as a party because Student's complaint did not allege the SELPA made decisions about or provided services to Student.
This case went to decision
Student v. The Charter School of San Diego: The Charter School of San Diego must reimburse $47,190.88 for a residential placement after it predetermined its May 2012 IEP offer. (2014)
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against The Charter School of San Diego and El Dorado County Charter SELPA. The SELPA moved to be dismissed, arguing that it is not responsible for providing Student a FAPE and that Student did not allege it provided any services. Student did not respond. OAH granted the motion. A SELPA's role is to administer funding and local plans, the complaint contained no allegations of SELPA involvement, and the SELPA director's sworn declaration confirmed it had none, so the case will proceed against San Diego only.
Why it matters
Naming a SELPA in a due process complaint is not enough. Parents must allege specific facts showing the SELPA made decisions about the student or provided services, or the SELPA will likely be dismissed. Not responding to a motion to dismiss makes dismissal more likely.
Key authority cited
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Ed. Code, § 56028.5
- Ed. Code, § 56500
- Ed. Code, §§ 56195, 56195.1
- Ed. Code, § 56205
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 60010
People named in the order
- Amy Andersen, Director, El Dorado County Charter SELPA (declarant)
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. 2014030133 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS EL DORADO COUNTY
THE CHARTER SCHOOL OF SAN CHARTER SPECIAL EDUCATION
DIEGO AND EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL PLAN AREA AS A PARTY
CHARTER SPECIAL EDUCATION
LOCAL PLAN AREA.
On March 4, 2014, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint), naming The Charter School of San Diego (San Diego) and El Dorado County Charter Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) as respondents.
On March 14, 2014, SELPA filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that it is not a proper party, as it is not a public agency responsible for providing Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and because Student has failed to allege that it provided any services to Student. Student has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss SELPA as a party.
APPLICABLE LAW
Special education due process hearing procedures extend to the parent or guardian, to the student in certain circumstances, and to “the public agency involved in any decisions regarding a pupil.” (Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) A “public agency” is defined as “a school district, county office of education, special education local plan area, . . . or any other public agency . . . providing special education or related services to individuals with exceptional needs.” (Ed. Code, §§ 56500 and 56028.5.)
Determination of whether SELPA is a “public agency involved in any decisions regarding” Student requires a review of California statutes that define the role of SELPA’s.
Education Code sections 56195, 56195.1, and title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 60010, set forth the role of SELPA’s. Specifically, a SELPA, meaning the service area covered by a special education local plan, shall administer the allocation of funds and local plans submitted under Education Code section 56205. Nothing in Education Code sections 56195 and 56195.1 renders a SELPA individually responsible to provide a FAPE to, or make education decisions about, a particular student. The duty to administer the allocation of funds and local plans is not a duty to provide FAPE to individual students or a duty to make educational decisions for individual students.
DISCUSSION
In his complaint, Student contends “the District” denied him a FAPE from May 15, 2012, to July 1, 2013, when it failed to: create an appropriate individualized education program (IEP); provide meaningful and measureable goals; provide appropriate services;
provide an appropriate placement; and hold multiple IEP team meetings. 1 Although SELPA fits the definition of a “public agency” set forth in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), to be a proper party for a due process hearing, SELPA must also be involved in making decisions about or providing services to Student. Student’s complaint contains no allegations that SELPA was involved in any decisions regarding Student or was responsible for the provision of any special education or related services. SELPA’s motion is supported by the sworn declaration of its Director, Amy Andersen, under penalty of perjury, which attests that SELPA, in fact, had no such involvement. Student has not established that SELPA is a proper party under Education Code section 56501, subdivision (a), and SELPA is entitled to dismissal.
ORDER
SELPA’s motion to be dismissed as a party is granted. This matter will proceed as scheduled against San Diego only.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 24, 2014 /s/
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 1 Student does not identify which respondent is “the District.”