California OAH special education order · April 4, 2016
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2016021044 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH denied Student's post-hearing motion to dismiss District's assessment case as moot, because Student offered no evidence of moving and lived in District when the hearing was held.
This case went to decision
San Dieguito Union High School District v. Student: San Dieguito Union High School District may complete triennial assessments; Student must make herself available within 45 days. (2016)
Summary
After the evidence closed in District's due process case on an assessment issue, Student moved to dismiss, arguing that she had moved out of District on March 25, 2016, making the decision moot. District opposed. It argued that residency had not been considered at hearing and that Student should not be allowed to submit new evidence after the hearing. OAH denied the motion and will issue a decision on the merits, because Student gave no legal or factual basis to reopen the record, offered no evidence that she had moved or where she went, and lived within District's boundaries at the time of hearing.
Why it matters
A claimed move after the hearing will not automatically end a district's case. A family raising residency or mootness must back it up with evidence and a legal basis for reopening the record.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501
- Ed. Code, § 48200
- Gov. Code, § 244
- Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith (9th Cir. 1994) 15 F.3d 1519
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
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:
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016021044
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On February 25, 2016, San Dieguito Union High School District filed a due process complaint naming Student as respondent. Administrative Law Judge Cole Dalton presided over the hearing on March 22, 2016. Both parties presented documentary evidence and witness testimony. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the ALJ continued the hearing to March 29, 2016, to allow the parties to submit written closing briefs.
On March 29, 2016, Student submitted a motion to dismiss District’s case on the grounds that Student moved out of District, making the hearing decision moot. District filed an opposition on March 29, 2016, arguing that a factual dispute regarding residency was not considered at hearing and Student should not be allowed to submit new evidence after the hearing.
APPLICABLE LAW
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et.
seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education”, and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) A party has the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.”
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a) [party has a right to present a complaint regarding matters involving proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child; the provision of a FAPE to a child; the refusal of a parent or guardian to consent to an assessment of a child; or a disagreement between a parent or guardian and the public education agency as to the availability of a program appropriate for a child, including the question of financial responsibility].) The jurisdiction of OAH is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.)
Education Code section 48200 provides that a child subject to compulsory full-time education shall attend public school in the school district in which the child’s parent or legal guardian resides. The determination of residency under the IDEA or the Education Code is no different from the determination of residency in other types of cases. (Union Sch. Dist. v.
Smith (9th Cir. 1994) 15 F.3d 1519, 1525.)
In California, Government Code section 244 lists “the basic rules generally regarded as applicable to domicile [legal residency].” (Fenton v. Board of Directors (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1114.)
Government Code, section 244, states in relevant part:
In determining the place of residence [domicile] the following rules shall be observed:
(a) It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he or she returns in seasons of repose.
(b) There can only be one residence.
(c) A residence cannot be lost until another is gained.
(f) The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent.
DISCUSSION
Student filed a motion to dismiss after the close of evidence. She has not provided a legal or factual basis upon which to reopen the hearing for submission of evidence that did not exist while the hearing was in progress.
In her motion, Student argued that she moved out of the District on March 25, 2016, and, since she no longer resided or was a Student in District, the assessment issue was moot.
However, Student provided no evidence that she has moved, and, if so, where to. Student resided within District’s jurisdictional boundaries at the time of the due process hearing and District remains entitled to a determination of its assessment issue.
ORDER
Student’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. A decision shall be rendered on the merits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 04, 2016
COLE DALTON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings