California OAH special education order · October 23, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014100679 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District failed to provide a 1:1 aide to Student, who has Down syndrome, gave supporting facts, and proposed resolutions.
Summary
District challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint, which alleged District denied Student a FAPE in the 2014-2015 school year by failing to provide a 1:1 aide. OAH found the complaint gave ample facts about the problem and proposed resolutions: a change of placement to a school closer to home, or home instruction. Reading the pleading rules liberally, the ALJ held the complaint gave District enough awareness and understanding of the issues to respond, and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A parent's complaint does not need to be polished. Clearly naming the missing service (here a 1:1 aide), giving supporting facts, and proposing a remedy is enough to defeat a district's notice of insufficiency.
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. 2014100679
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On October 14, 2014 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming San Bernardino City Unified School District.
On October 22, 2014, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) 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 2014-2015 school year. Specifically, the complaint alleges that District failed to provide Student, who has Down’s Syndrome, a 1:1 aide. Although the majority of Student’s complaint focuses on the serious consequences of District’s alleged failure to provide Student constant supervision via a 1:1 aide, Student’s complaint states a disagreement with the program of education Student receives. Student’s proposed resolution is a change of placement to a different school that is closer to her home, or for District to provide Student instruction in Student’s home. 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 appropriate related services, specifically a 1:1 aide.
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: October 23, 2014
/ S/
KARA HATFIELD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings