California OAH special education order · September 19, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014090338 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge, because it gave enough facts about the placement and IEP-timing claims for District to understand the issues.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that District placed Student in a Special Day Class that was too restrictive for a student of average intelligence during 2013-2014. It also alleged that District failed to hold a timely IEP meeting and offer an appropriate 2014-2015 placement after Parents asked for one. OAH held that the complaint identified the issues, gave adequate supporting facts, and proposed a resolution (gradual mainstreaming with resource support), so it was sufficient, and all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that plainly describes the placement problem, the school years involved, and the remedy sought will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads pleadings liberally. Parents do not need detailed legal argument to get to hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- 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
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. 2014090338
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On September 5, 2014, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming Milpitas Unified School District.
On September 18, 2014, District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s 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
Student’s complaint alleges that District denied Student a FAPE in the 2013-2014 school year. Specifically, the complaint alleges that District provided an inappropriate placement in that a Special Day Class is too restrictive based on Student’s average intelligence. Also, Student contends District failed to hold a timely IEP meeting and offer an appropriate placement for the 2014-2015 school year in response to Parents’ request.
Student’s proposed resolution is an appropriate placement including gradually mainstreaming Student through the use of resource support services. The complaint states Student’s name and date of birth, Student’s residence address and school of attendance.
A review of the complaint shows that Student provided ample “facts related to the problem” to provide District the requisite “awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of [Student’s] complaint.” Student alleges that District did not provide an appropriate placement in the 2013-2014 school year and did not hold a timely IEP meeting and offer an appropriate placement for the 2014-2015 school year in response to Parents’ request.
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).
In sum, Student’s complaint identifies the issues, adequate related facts about the problem(s), and proposed resolutions to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Accordingly, the complaint is sufficient.
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.
DATE: September 19, 2014
/ S/
KARA HATFIELD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings