California OAH special education order · June 3, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015060035 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its six issues, about IEP meeting procedures and home and hospital services, gave District enough facts and proposed resolutions to respond.
This case went to decision
Student v. Tehachapi Unified School District: Tehachapi Unified must provide 105 hours of tutoring for failing to offer home instruction after two surgeries; mobility claims denied. (2016)
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint raised six issues: lack of meaningful parent participation at a September 2013 IEP meeting, a missing general education teacher at a May 2014 IEP meeting, and failure to offer home and hospital instruction with related services such as behavior, mobility, and aide support. Applying a liberal pleading standard, OAH found the facts and proposed resolutions adequate to put District on notice and let it take part in a resolution session and mediation. All scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Complaints that tie each issue to specific IEP meetings or services, and that list concrete remedies, will usually survive a district's sufficiency challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 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. 2015060035 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On May 19, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student, through legal counsel, filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming the Tehachapi Unified School District. On May 29, 2015, District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency 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 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 contains six issues for hearing which allege that District failed to procedurally and substantively develop an educational program that met his unique needs. In Issue One, Student alleges that District failed to allow meaningful parent participation during an individualized education program meeting held on September 16, 2013. Issue Two alleges that District failed to include a general education teacher during a May 14, 2014 IEP meeting. Issues three, four, five and six allege that District failed to offer Student home and hospital instruction and related services, including behavior, mobility, and individual aide support.
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’s complaint satisfactorily 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 complaint 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).
Student’s proposed resolutions are that District provide education services through a non-public agency; compensatory education services; assess Student; and develop an appropriate educational program. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C.
§1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well- defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
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 03, 2015
/S/
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings