California OAH special education order · June 1, 2015

Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint

OAH Case No. 2015060016 · ALJ June R. Lehrman

OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough notice of the claims about placement, goals, services, parent input, and a failure to assess on parental request.

Complaint found sufficient Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH ruled the complaint sufficient. It alleged that Student's IEP offered an inappropriate placement, goals, services, and program design; that an independent provider's services were not appropriate; that the IEP left out information Parent provided; and that District failed to assess Student when Parent asked. Reading the pleading rules liberally, OAH found these allegations gave District enough facts to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, and it confirmed all scheduled dates.

Why it matters

OAH reads complaints liberally, so a complaint only needs to name the problems and give basic supporting facts to survive a district's insufficiency challenge. Families should still clearly list each issue, such as placement, goals, services, and assessment requests.

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

sufficiency notice of insufficiency iep assessment request placement liberal construction

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. 2015060016

v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF

SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS

CAMBRIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT

On May 14, 2015 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming District.

On May 26, 2015, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to the 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 his current individualized education program offers inappropriate placement and contains inappropriate goals, services and program design; that services provided by an independent service provider were not appropriate; that the IEP fails to reflect all relevant information provided by parent; and that District failed to assess Student upon parental request. 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 the 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: June 01, 2015

/S /

JUNE R. LEHRMAN

Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings