California OAH special education order · June 9, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015060267 · ALJ Caroline A. Zuk
OAH found Student's behavior-strategies claim sufficient but ruled the broad placement, program, and services claim insufficient because it gave no facts describing the problem; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
District challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint. District agreed that Issue 2, alleging District failed to put effective behavioral strategies in place during 2014-2015 to address elopement and safety, was sufficient, and OAH found it sufficient. OAH found Issue 1, a broad claim that District failed to provide an appropriate placement, program, and services all year, insufficient because it did not describe the problems or give supporting facts. Student's proposed resolutions, a nonpublic school placement and an independent behavior evaluation, were sufficient. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint; otherwise the hearing will go forward on Issue 2 only.
Why it matters
A general claim that a district denied an appropriate placement, program, and services, with no specific facts, will not survive a sufficiency challenge. Parents should describe the actual problems and the facts behind each claim.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541
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. 2015060267 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LAWNDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT
On May 21, 2015 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming Lawndale Elementary School District. On May 29, 2015, District 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 alleges one broad problem that contains two allegations, one of which is sufficient and the other is insufficient.
Student alleges in Issue 2 that during the 2014-2015 school year, District failed to “implement effective behavioral strategies to support [Student’s] ability to access his educational program, to stop him from eloping, and to ensure his safety.” District agrees in its Notice of Insufficiency that this allegation is sufficiently pled to put District on notice as to the basis of Student’s claim.
With regard to the other allegation, Issue 1, Student broadly alleges that “District has failed to provide an appropriate placement, program, and services at all times during the 2014-2015 school year, thereby denying [Student] the ability to access his academic program and causing him los off educational opportunity.” Student’s complaint fails to describe the nature of the problems and the related facts regarding Student’s placement, program and services. Therefore, Student has failed to state sufficient facts supporting this claim, and the claim is 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 proposed resolutions are that District to provide a non-public school placement and provide for an independent behavior evaluation. 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. Student’s Issue 2 is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Student’s Issue 1 is insufficiently pled under title 20 United States Code
section 1415(c)(2)(D).
3. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II). 8
4. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 United
States Code section 1415 (b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
5. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the hearing shall proceed
only on Student’s Issue 2.
DATE: June 09, 2015
/S/
CAROLINE A. ZUK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 8 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.