California OAH special education order · November 12, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015110259 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH found District's due process complaint sufficient because it identified its single FAPE claim, Student's educational history, the offered program, and a proposed resolution, giving Student enough notice to respond.
Summary
District filed a due process complaint seeking a ruling that its March 9 and April 2, 2015 IEPs, as amended on October 28, 2015, offered Student a free appropriate public education and that it could implement them without parental consent. Student filed a notice of insufficiency. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it described Student's educational history, the program offered, some reasons for it, and a proposed resolution. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A district complaint asking OAH to approve its IEP offer over a parent's objection will usually survive a sufficiency challenge if it names the IEPs and describes the offer. Parents should expect to prepare to defend against the district's claim on the merits rather than get it dismissed for being vague.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Ed. Code § 56502
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:
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015110259
DISTRICT,
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
v. SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On November 04, 2015, Fremont Union High School District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Student.
On November 11, 2015, at 9:53 p.m., Student filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to District’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) 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. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).) These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. (See H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.)
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A).
supra, at p. 34.) 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. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, CIV. 06-CV-0215-JL) 2009 WL 2957991[nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Bd. 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, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, 775 [nonpub. opn.].) Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. (Assistance to States for the Educ. of Children with Disabilities & Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Aug. 14, 2006) 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Here, District’s complaint seeks a declaration that it offered Student a free appropriate public education in its individualized education programs of March 9 and April 2, 2015, as amended by its October 28, 2015 IEP and that it can implement its offer of FAPE over lack of parental consent. District’s complaint describes Student’s educational history leading up to the IEPs at issue, the program it has offered, some reasons for offering the program, and defines its proposed resolution.
The facts alleged in District’s complaint are sufficient to put the Student on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. District’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Student to respond to the complaint and participate in mediation.
Therefore, District’s statement of the sole claim is sufficient.
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: November 12, 2015
/S/
COLE DALTON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings