California OAH special education order · September 26, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014090496 · ALJ Robert Martin
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described District's alleged failures to provide individualized behavior services, to train and supervise behavior staff, and to assess behavior before the May 2014 IEP.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It alleged that from September 2012 on, Student had maladaptive behaviors, inattention, noncompliance, and social deficits. It also alleged that District did not offer individualized behavior services, that staff assigned to deliver the intensive behavior intervention required by the IEPs were not adequately trained or supervised, and that District failed to assess Student's behavior before the May 2014 IEP. Because these allegations gave District enough notice to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, all hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the specific IEPs, the time period, the services at issue, and how the district fell short will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, since OAH reads pleadings liberally.
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
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2014090496
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 11, 2014 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming Long Beach Unified School District.
On September 23, 2014, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint, contending that Student’s complaint did provide sufficient supporting facts for District to understand the bases for Student’s claims.
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 District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student alleges that, from September 11, 2012 to the filing of the complaint, Student exhibited maladaptive behaviors, inattention, noncompliance, and social deficits. The complaint states that District did not offer Student behavioral services individualized to address his unique needs. Student contends that Student’s individualized education plan (IEP) in effect as of September 2012, as well as subsequent IEPs in March 2013 and May 2014, provided that Student was to receive direct intensive behavior intervention services, but that the staff assigned to Student was insufficiently trained and supervised to implement those services. Finally, the complaint alleges that District improperly failed to assess Student with respect to his behavioral issues prior to his May 2014 IEP.
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. Therefore, Student’s statement of his claims is sufficient.
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).
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 26, 2014
/S/
ROBERT MARTIN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings