California OAH special education order · July 3, 2014
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2014051236 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the stay put denial because Student's new facts, including willingness to attend another school and long travel to Stein, were known earlier and not explained.
This case went to decision
Vista Unified School District v. Student: Vista Unified may implement its May 2014 IEP placing a student with autism at Stein Education Center over parents' objections. (2014)
Summary
OAH had denied Student's stay put motion because the private non-public school (TERI) refused to keep Student, OAH cannot order a private school to take a student, and the District offered a comparable non-public school, Stein Education Center. Student asked for reconsideration. Student argued the denial was based on a mistaken belief, said Student would accept a different school closer to home, and said Stein required four to five hours of travel a day. OAH denied the request because the original ruling was not based on a mistaken belief, and Student knew the new facts at the time of the original motion but gave no explanation for not raising them.
Why it matters
A stay put motion should raise every objection and every acceptable alternative placement up front, with sworn declarations. OAH generally will not reconsider based on facts the family already knew but did not present.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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:
VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH CASE NO. 2014051236
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On June 12, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying Student’s motion for stay put on the grounds that a private entity had refused to continue to allow Student to attend its non-public school, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks authority to order a private entity to allow a student to attend its non-public school, and Vista Unified School District offered Student placement at another non-public school that was comparable to Student’s prior placement. On June 20, 2014, Student filed a request for reconsideration.
The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
Initially, Student requests reconsideration on the basis that the order denying stay put was erroneously issued on the incorrect belief that Student’s prior placement had closed or “because of money.” As stated above, Student’s motion for stay put was denied because under the changed circumstances of a private entity refusing to allow Student to continue attending its non-public school (TERI), TERI cannot be considered Student’s stay put right and District has satisfied its obligation to continue to provide Student with a placement consistent with Student’s last agreed upon and implemented IEP by offering Student a different placement at another nonpublic school that District contended is comparable to
TERI.
Student also requests reconsideration on the basis that Student is not insistent on returning to TERI but would like to attend another non-public school closer to Student’s home. This fact was not raised in Student’s original motion. Student’s motion for stay put repeatedly requested only that District be ordered to have Student continue attending TERI.
Although Student’s willingness to attend a different school, even a public school, is a new fact presented in the request for reconsideration, Student was aware of the existence of other schools at the time of the original motion for stay put but did not request any option other than TERI as a stay put placement. Further, Student’s request for reconsideration offers no explanation of why this fact was not, or perhaps could not have been, presented in the original motion.
Student further requests reconsideration on the grounds that District’s offered placement, Stein Education Center, requires Student to travel four to five hours per day. This fact was not raised in Student’s original motion and Student’s only objection to Stein in the original motion was the assertion, unsupported by a sworn declaration, that Stein “did not want to commit themselves in writing to being able to grant the therapies” required by Student’s IEP. Although the travel time required for Student to attend Stein is a new fact presented in the request for reconsideration, Student was aware of the distance to Stein at the time of the original motion for stay put but did not raise travel time to dispute District’s assertion that Stein is comparable to TERI. Further, Student’s request for reconsideration offers no explanation of why this fact was not, or perhaps could not have been, presented in the original motion.
Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 3, 2014
/S/
KARA HATFIELD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings