California OAH special education order · November 3, 2015
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2015100917 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student's residential treatment center agreed to keep Student through November 30, 2015, so Student remained in his last agreed-upon placement and no actual controversy existed.
Summary
Student asked OAH for a stay put order keeping him in a therapeutic residential treatment center, because his current center, Sorensons Ranch, planned to stop serving him after November 5, 2015. District opposed. It said Sorensons Ranch would now keep Student through November 30, 2015, and that District was working to place him at the successor center Student had identified as appropriate. OAH denied the motion because both sides agreed the stay put placement was a therapeutic residential treatment center, Student was still in that placement, and there was no actual controversy to decide.
Why it matters
OAH will not issue a stay put order when the student is still in the last agreed-upon and implemented placement, even if that placement is expected to end soon. If a residential program does stop serving the student later, parents can bring a new stay put motion.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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. 2015100917 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PUT
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On October 26, 2015, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a motion for stay put against the Los Angeles Unified School District, which asserted that Student’s last agreed upon and implemented educational program called for placement at a therapeutic residential treatment center and that Student’s present placement was to end on November 5, 2015. On October 30, 2015, District filed an opposition on the ground that Student’s present residential treatment center would continue to provide Student with services through November 30, 2015, and by then District would have obtained a successor therapeutic residential treatment center for Student to attend.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).) This is referred to as “stay put.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student's individualized education program, which has been implemented prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §3042.)
DISCUSSION
The parties do not dispute that Student’s last agreed upon and implemented educational program is a therapeutic residential treatment center, which is presently Sorensons Ranch. While Sorensons Ranch initially informed Student and District that it would cease providing services to Student after November 5, 2015, it has informed District that it will maintain Student in placement through November 30, 2015. Further, District is attempting to place Student in the therapeutic residential treatment center that Student had identified as appropriate. Accordingly, since Student is still at Sorensons Ranch through November 30, 2015, Student’s motion for stay put is denied. No actual controversy exists as Student is still in his last agreed upon and implemented educational program.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
DATE: November 3, 2015
/ S/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings