California OAH special education order · February 19, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016020591 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient because it identified the eligibility categories at issue, Student's unmet needs, and the reimbursement sought, giving District enough notice to respond.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's complaint. The complaint alleged District violated its child find duties by not finding Student eligible under autism, speech and language impairment, and other health impairment, and that Student's unmet needs led Parents to pay for a nonpublic school and services. OAH found the complaint identified the issues and enough related facts for District to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. The complaint was deemed sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint can survive a sufficiency challenge if it names the eligibility categories at issue, describes the child's unmet needs, and states the remedy sought, such as reimbursement for a private placement. OAH reads these pleading requirements liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 46540-46541, 46699
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:
STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016020591 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On February 8, 2016, Parents on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Mateo Union High School District. On February 17, 2016, District 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. (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.)
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).
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, 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
In the complaint, Student contends that District violated its child find duties by not finding Student eligible for special education under the eligibility categories of autism, speech and language impairment, and other health impaired. Because of this failure, Student was denied educational benefit because Student’s needs were not met. Student avers that those needs include a class with a low teacher-to-student ratio, a small campus, a curriculum with an integrated occupational therapy component, communication facilitation services, and behavior services. Because Student’s needs were not met, Student’s parents incurred the cost for enrolling him in a nonpublic school and providing such services. Student seeks reimbursement to parents for costs incurred in the providing of educational services The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint 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.
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: February 19, 2016 /s/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings