California OAH special education order · April 4, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016030918 · ALJ Elsa H. Jones
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Torrance's argument that the complaint had to spell out assessment inconsistencies and could not allege alternative dates for when a residential placement became appropriate.
Summary
Torrance Unified School District challenged two allegations in Student's complaint. The first said the District's June 2015 psychoeducational assessment failed to reconcile inconsistent Behavior Assessment System for Children results. The second said the District wrongly denied requests for a residential treatment center placement, which was needed since October 2014 or at least since the March 2015 IEP. The District argued the inconsistencies had to be specified and that Student could allege only one time period. The ALJ found both allegations adequately pled and not ambiguous, gave the District enough notice to respond, and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A complaint may plead alternative dates for when a placement became necessary without being insufficient. Notice-pleading standards are applied liberally, so districts cannot demand evidentiary-level detail at the sufficiency stage.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016030918 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On March 15, 2016, Parent on behalf of Student (collectively, Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Torrance Unified School District. On March 30, 2016, Torrance Unified School 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.)
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
District’s Notice of Insufficiency is directed at Allegations F and H of the complaint.
Allegation F concerns alleged deficiencies in the District’s June 17, 2015, psychoeducational assessment, including that the District did not reconcile internal inconsistencies in the results on the Behavior Assessment System for Children. District contends that the alleged inconsistencies should be specified. Allegation H is based on District’s denial of Guardian’s multiple requests for a residential treatment center placement at every IEP since October 2,
2014. The complaint alleges that there was clear evidence that Student required such a
placement at all times since October 2, 2014, but, regardless of whether an RTC placement was appropriate as of October 2, 2014, all of the circumstances known to District reflected that an RTC placement was appropriate as of the time of the March 27, 2015 IEP and thereafter. District contends that the complaint is insufficient because it should specify only one period of time, and not allege alternative dates.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student has adequately pled the alleged defects in District’s analysis of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, and there is no ambiguity or inconsistency in Student’s allegations regarding the appropriateness of Guardian’s placement requests. 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 statement of Allegations F and H are 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: April 4, 2016
ELSA H. JONES
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings