California OAH special education order · March 30, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016031287 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District denied Parent meaningful participation by failing to provide Student's educational records despite two written requests.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's complaint. The complaint raised one issue: whether District denied Student a free appropriate public education by excluding Parent from decision-making, because it failed to provide Student's educational records after two written requests from Student's attorney. OAH found the complaint identified the issue and alleged enough related facts for District to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. The complaint was deemed sufficient, and all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A short complaint built on a single, clearly stated issue with concrete facts, such as dated records requests that went unanswered, can survive a sufficiency challenge. Failure to produce records can be framed as a parent-participation denial of FAPE.
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
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. 2016031287 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On March 21, 2016, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Luis Coastal Unified School District. On March 28, 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.)
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
Student’s complaint contains a single issue which is whether District is denying Student a free appropriate public education by failing to include Parent in the decision- making process from March 18, 2016 to present by failing to provide parent with Student’s educational records. In support of this issue, Student alleges the following: (1) District filed with OAH a Request for Due Process Hearing on February 3, 2016 in OAH Case Number 2016020330; (2) on March 1, 2016, Student’s attorney made a written request, on behalf of Parent, for a copy of Student’s educational records; (3) after not receiving a response to the March 1, 2016 request, Student’s attorney made a second response for Student’s educational records; (3) Student still has not received a copy of the requested records and is unable to prepare its defense or participate in the IEP decision-making process to determine what an appropriate placement would be for Student.
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’s complaint identifies the issue and alleges 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: March 30, 2016
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings