California OAH special education order · March 21, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016030535 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because all five issues about District's eligibility, assessment, and IEP decisions gave District enough facts to prepare, and the proposed resolutions were well-defined.
Summary
Alhambra Unified School District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, and Student filed a response. Student's five issues claimed District wrongly failed to find Student still eligible for special education, failed to assess in all areas of suspected disability, and failed to develop an appropriate IEP. OAH found that each issue alleged enough facts to put District on notice. It also found that the proposed resolutions (continued eligibility, a proper IEP, and compensatory education) were well-defined. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A parent's complaint that clearly describes the problem, gives supporting facts, and asks for specific remedies such as continued eligibility and compensatory education will usually survive a district's insufficiency challenge.
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)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
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. 2016030535 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On March 1, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Alhambra Unified School District. On March 16, 2016, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. Student filed a response on March 18, 2016.
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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies the Office of Administrative Hearings and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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 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).
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, 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
Student’s complaint contains five issues for hearing, which involve District’s purported failure to determine that Student remains eligible for special education services, failure to assess in all areas of suspected disability, and not developing an individualized educational program to meet Student’s unique needs because District has not found Student remains eligible for special education services. Student’s complaint alleges sufficient facts in all Issues regarding District’s purported failure to provide Student with a FAPE.
Therefore, Student alleged sufficient facts to put District on notice as to Issues 1 through 5 for hearing.
Among Student’s proposed resolutions is that District continue to find Student eligible for special education services, develop a proper IEP and provide compensatory education. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well-defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
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: March 21, 2016
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings