California OAH special education order · April 22, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015040861 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge over the missing IEP date because District admitted it had made only one FAPE offer to the preschooler.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's complaint, which alleged that District's offer of placement and services denied a FAPE in the least restrictive environment and failed to include clinic-based speech and occupational therapy. District conceded that Student was a preschooler new to the District and that only one IEP meeting had been held and only one FAPE offer made. OAH found that District therefore knew which offer was at issue, so the missing IEP date did not make the complaint insufficient. The complaint stated the issues, related facts, and proposed resolutions, and all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not have to list every detail, such as the IEP date, if the district clearly knows which offer is being challenged. Pleading rules are read liberally in parents' favor.
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 (2003)
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2015040861 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On April 15, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) naming Beverly Hills Unified School District.
On April 22, 2015, 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student alleges that (1) District’s offer was not a FAPE in the least restrictive environment because the proposed placement was not inclusive, did not have enough hours per day, lacked sufficient occupational therapy and speech therapy services, and had too large a teacher/student ratio, (2) Student requires but was not offered clinic-based speech therapy, and (3) Student requires but was not offered clinic-based occupational therapy. As remedies, Student seeks reimbursement for his current placement in a nonpublic school with classroom-based services, and reimbursement for clinic-based occupational therapy and speech therapy.
District concedes in its NOI that Student is a preschooler who just entered the District, and that District has convened only one individualized education program team meeting for Student and made only one FAPE offer. Therefore, District is aware of the offer at issue, and the lack of specificity as to the date of the IEP does not render the complaint insufficient.
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).
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. Student has also met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him at the time.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the three claims 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: April 22, 2015
/S/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings