California OAH special education order · July 18, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016060676 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that its restraint, IEP implementation, goal progress, grade reporting, and IEP team attendance claims gave Saugus enough notice to respond.
This case went to decision
Student v. Saugus Union School District: Saugus Union School District prevails on all four claims about restraint, academic goals, report card grades, and IEP team membership. (2016)
Summary
After OAH found Student's first complaint insufficient, Student filed an amended complaint, and Saugus challenged it as insufficient too. OAH held that each of the five issues was sufficiently pled. These were improper use of restraints causing injuries and missed school, failure to implement the IEP and academic goals in 2015-2016, failure to make progress on goals over several years, failure to report grades, and the absence of a general education teacher at the May 2016 IEP meeting. Applying IDEA's liberal pleading standard, OAH said exact time frames could be clarified at the prehearing conference, and it found the proposed resolution of leaving the district school plus a $48,000 compensatory education fund adequate.
Why it matters
A parent whose first complaint is found insufficient can fix it by amending, and OAH reads complaints liberally. Missing details like exact dates can often be clarified at the prehearing conference rather than defeating the complaint.
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 Fed. Reg. 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. 2016060676 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAUGUS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On June 9, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Saugus Union School District. On June 9, 2016, Saugus filed a Notice of Insufficiency which OAH granted on June 15, 2016. Student was afforded the opportunity to amend his complaint. Student filed an amended complaint on July 15, 2016. On July 15, 2016, Saugus filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s amended 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
The facts alleged in Student’s amended complaint are sufficient to put Saugus on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s amended complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problems to permit Saugus to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student alleges that he has autism and has been receiving specialized services from Saugus since 2008. Student identifies as an issue for hearing that Saugus denied him a free appropriate public education by inappropriately utilizing restraints which resulted in physical injuries and led to Student missing school due to emotional distress. Student further alleges his March 25, 2015 behavior intervention plan does not authorize the use of restraints. The specific time frame for this issue can be clarified at the prehearing conference. Given the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s liberal pleading requirements, this issue is found sufficient.
Student additionally alleges that Saugus denied him a FAPE by failing to implement his individualized education program in terms of providing educational instruction and failing to implement his academic goals for the 2015-2016 school year. This issue is sufficiently pled.
Student next alleges that Saugus denied him a FAPE as evidenced by his failure to meet any of his academic goals for the 2015-2016 school year, and his failure to meet half of his goals for the 2014-2015 and 2013-2014 school years. This issue is found sufficient.
Student also alleges he was denied a FAPE when Saugus failed to report on his grades for the first reporting period. The date of this reporting period can be clarified at the prehearing conference. This issue is sufficient.
Student identifies as a final issue for hearing Saugus’ failure to ensure the attendance of a general education teacher at the May 2016 IEP team meeting, which Student alleges denied him a FAPE. This issue is sufficiently pled.
Therefore, Student’s amended complaint is sufficient.
Student’s proposed resolution requests that Student no longer attend a District school, and that Saugus provide a compensatory education fund of $48,000 for Parent to provide Student with tutoring, speech services, mental health services, and applied behavior analysis services. 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).)
Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him at the time.
ORDER
1. Student’s amended 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: July 18, 2016
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings