California OAH special education order · March 9, 2015
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2015030143 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student's family had moved out of District's boundaries and Student did not show what his last agreed-upon and implemented IEP placement was.
Summary
Student asked for stay put at District even though Student and Parent had moved to another city in the same county, arguing the move was temporary. District opposed. OAH denied the motion because Student cited no law making a former district responsible after a family moves into another district's boundaries, and offered no facts showing Student was still a District resident. OAH also found that even if residency were not an issue, Student had not attached or described his last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, so there was no way to tell what stay put would be.
Why it matters
A family that moves out of a district, even temporarily, will likely lose stay put at the old district unless it can show it still lives there. Any stay put motion should attach the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP and describe the placement and services in detail.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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. 2015030143 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PUT
CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
Student filed a motion for stay put on February 27, 2015. On March 5, 2015, Cajon Valley Union High School District filed an opposition to the motion. Student filed a reply to District’s opposition on March 6, 2015.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).) This is referred to as “stay put.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student's individualized education program, which has been implemented prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
DISCUSSION
In his due process complaint as well as in his motion for stay put, Student acknowledges that neither he nor his parents presently live within District’s boundaries.
Student states that due to circumstances beyond the control of his family, they have had to move to a city located some distance from District, albeit in the same county. Student contends however, that the move is temporary. He therefore contends that his stay put is a placement at District because he and his parent apparently intend to return to live within District’s boundaries at some unspecified time in the future.
Student failed to provide any citation to statute or case law that supports his contention that a school district where a child previously lived is responsible for providing a special education placement and services after the child and the child’s parent have moved into the boundaries of another district. Student also failed to provide any factual basis for asserting that he remains a resident of the District. Student does not contend that either of his parents presently lives within District’s boundaries or even maintains an additional residence there available for them in which to live. There is no basis, therefore, for Student’s assertion that his stay put is at a District school.
Additionally even if Student’s residency had not changed and was not an issue in his motion, Student has failed to present any evidence of what his stay put placement and services would be. Student failed to attach a copy of his last agreed upon and implemented educational program, such as an IEP, to his motion. He also failed to describe in his motion exactly what his placement consists of in terms of programming, type of classroom, services, accommodations, or modifications to the curriculum, pursuant to the IEP Student contends should define his stay put. It is therefore impossible to determine what would constitute Student’s stay put, even assuming he still resided within District’s boundaries.
For these reasons, Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 9, 2015
/ S/
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings