California OAH special education order · July 22, 2015
Order for Additional Information on Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2015070326 · ALJ Caroline A. Zuk
OAH deferred ruling on Student's stay put motion and ordered District to back its residency challenge with sworn declarations, because its street listing exhibit was unauthenticated and its Richmond address claim was unsupported.
Summary
Student moved for stay put. District opposed, arguing Student does not live in the District. It pointed to a private investigator's reports placing the family in Richmond, and to a 2007 street listing suggesting Parent's affidavit address falls within Dixie School District. OAH found it could not rule on the papers because District had not authenticated the street listing or identified the actual district of residence. It ordered District to file declarations under penalty of perjury by July 27, 2015, with Student's response due July 30, 2015.
Why it matters
A district that opposes stay put by challenging residency must back up its claims with authenticated, sworn evidence, not just investigator reports or old street listings. Families can expect OAH to hold the district to that proof before denying stay put on residency grounds.
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. 2015070326 v. ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ON MOTION FOR
SAN RAFAEL CITY SCHOOLS STAY PUT
On July 13, 2015, Student filed a motion for stay put. On July 16, 2015, District filed an opposition on the ground that Student is not a resident of the District. Student contends that he resides within District’s jurisdiction. District contends that Student resides within Richmond, California, based on reports from a private investigator. District claims that Student’s brother disclosed the family’s address in Richmond but District did not disclose that address in its opposition. District further contends that based on Parent’s Affidavit of Residency, Student may reside within the boundaries of Dixie School District but District questions the authenticity of the Affidavit.
Additional information is required before a ruling may be made on the pleadings as to Student’s motion for stay put. In support of its opposition, District submitted Exhibit “2,”
described as “San Rafael City Schools Street Listing,” dated October 12, 2007. District observes that the street address certified by Parent in an Affidavit of Residency, dated June 12, 2015, may be within the jurisdiction of Dixie School District based on the information set forth in District’s Exhibit 2. However, District did not declare that the San Rafael City Schools Street Listing was a true, correct, and current copy of District’s street listing, and that the physical address referenced by Parent in the Affidavit and in Student’s moving papers falls within the jurisdiction of the Dixie School District or another school district.
Accordingly, District needs to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury to authenticate the San Rafael City Schools Street Listing as a correct and current listing of the streets within District’s jurisdiction. District also needs to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury regarding the name of the school district for the physical address identified in Student’s motion at page 13, line 23, and in Parent’s Affidavit of Residency. 1 Further, if District believes that Parent resides in Richmond, then it needs to submit credible evidence of Parent’s physical address there and the name of the corresponding district of residence.
ORDER
By 5:00 p.m., on July 27, 2015, District shall submit to OAH and Student a declaration, under penalty of perjury, regarding the authenticity of the San Rafael City Schools Street Listing (Exhibit “2”), dated October 12, 2007; the name of the school district of residence corresponding to the physical address identified in Student’s motion at page 13, line 23, and in Parent’s Affidavit of Residency; Parent’s physical address in Richmond, California; and the name of the school district of residence corresponding to Parent’s physical address in Richmond. Student’s response shall be submitted to OAH and District by 5:00 p.m., on July 30, 2015.
DATE: July 22, 2015
/S/
CAROLINE A. ZUK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings There is a slight discrepancy between the name of the street referenced in Student’s motion and Parent’s Affidavit. However, the name of the street referenced in Student’s motion at page 13, line 23, and in District’s Exhibit 2, are identical.