California OAH special education order · February 24, 2015

Order Denying Student's Request for Clarification of District's Response

OAH Case No. 2015020485 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee

OAH denied Student's request to rule on whether District's written response to the due process complaint was legally sufficient, finding such a ruling unnecessary and an improper advisory opinion.

Denied Other orders

This case went to decision

Student v. Bellflower Unified School District: Bellflower Unified must fund the parent's chosen independent psychoeducational evaluator, who met all district criteria, at up to $7,000. (2015)

Summary

Student asked OAH to clarify whether District's response to the due process complaint complied with the IDEA and California law. Student also asked whether that response might count as District's own due process complaint. OAH declined both requests. The IDEA requires a district to respond in writing to the parent, but it does not require a response to be filed with OAH, and a ruling on the response's sufficiency was not needed for the case to go to hearing. OAH also noted it had not treated the response as a complaint and that special education law has no such thing as a cross-complaint.

Why it matters

OAH will not judge whether a district's response to a due process complaint is adequate, because that response is not part of what the hearing decides. Parents should focus on the issues in their own complaint, and a district that wants to raise its own claims must file its own complaint.

Key authority cited

20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)
Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (d)(2)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3089
Princeton University v. Schmid (1982) 455 U.S. 100
Stonehouse Homes v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531

Topics

district response advisory opinion clarification request cross-complaint prior written notice

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. 2015020485 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF

BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S RESPONSE

DISTRICT.

On February 3, 2015, Student filed a request for due process hearing (due process complaint) naming Bellflower Unified School District.

On February 13, 2015, District filed a response to Student’s due process complaint.

On February 17, 2015, Student filed a request that OAH “clarify” District’s response to determine whether it complies with the Individual with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (IDEA)) and California law.

On February 23, 2015, Student filed a response to District’s response.

APPLICABLE LAW

The IDEA requires that a school district explain its actions or inactions with regard to a student’s educational program to the parent in writing upon the parent’s filing of a due process complaint, unless it has already done so:

If the local educational agency has not sent a prior written notice to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the parent’s due process complaint notice, such local educational agency shall, within 10 days of receiving the complaint, send to the parent a response....

...

Except as provided in clause (i), the non-complaining party shall, within 10 days of receiving the complaint, send to the complain[ant] a response that specifically addresses the issues raised in the complaint.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)(emphasis added); See also Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (d)(2)(b) [requiring prior written notice or response to parent].)

Special education due process hearings are limited to an examination of the time frame pleaded in the complaint and as established by the evidence at the hearing and expressly do not include declaratory decisions about how the IDEA would apply hypothetically or to issues outside of the proceeding. (Gov. Code, § 11465.10-11465.60;

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3089; see also Princeton University v. Schmid (1982) 455 U.S. 100, 102 [102 S.Ct. 867, 70 L. Ed. 2d 855] [“courts do not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions”]; Stonehouse Homes v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 539-542 [court deemed the matter not ripe for adjudication because it was asked to speculate on hypothetical situations and there was no showing of imminent and significant hardship].)

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Here, Student requests that OAH opine on the sufficiency of District’s response to Parent. Student also asserts, without any authority, that District’s response to Parent may constitute District’s own filing of a due process complaint.

The IDEA requires that an agency respond in writing to the parent with regard to issues raised in a due process complaint, either by prior written notice or in response to the complaint. However, an agency is not required to file a response with OAH, and a response does not become necessary or relevant to the due process proceeding simply because it was faxed to, and filed with, OAH. A “clarification” of the sufficiency of District’s response to Parent is unnecessary for this matter to proceed to hearing and would constitute an advisory opinion. Therefore, OAH declines to determine the sufficiency of District’s response.

Student’s request that OAH determine if District’s response constitutes a separate due process complaint is also unnecessary, considering that OAH did not treat the response as a due process hearing request by assigning a case number, and there is no such thing as a “cross-complaint” in special education law. OAH declines to opine on whether such a response could support a District-filed claim.

For the reasons set forth above, Student’s motion for clarification of District’s response to the due process complaint is denied.