California OAH special education order · July 15, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016060847 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its three claims, covering child find, assessment in all areas of suspected disability, and program design since June 2014, gave Torrance enough notice to respond and prepare.
Summary
Torrance filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It identified three issues: failure to meet child find duties, failure to assess in all areas of suspected disability, and failure to design a program meeting Student's unique needs, all from June 2014 to the present. It also included adequate facts and proposed resolutions such as independent educational evaluations, behavior therapy, academic services, compensatory education, and attorney fees. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that clearly names its issues, gives a time frame and related facts, and proposes remedies will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads these pleadings liberally. The order also notes that a district delayed its own ruling by filing its Notice of Insufficiency together with a Notice of Representation instead of as separate pleadings.
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
- 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. 2016060847 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On June 9, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Torrance Unified School District. On June 24, 2016, Torrance filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint.2
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 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).
2 OAH requires that parties file each Notice and each Motion as a separate distinct pleading to ensure that all pleadings are timely addressed. Here, Torrance filed its Notice of Insufficiency together with a Notice of Representation which delayed this order.
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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Torrance on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problems to permit Torrance to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student identifies three issues for hearing, all of which are sufficiently pled. Student alleges that Torrance denied him a free appropriate public education from June 2014 through the present by: failing to fulfill its child find duties; failing to appropriately assess him in all areas of suspected disability; and failing to design an educational program to meet his unique needs.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the three claims is sufficient.
Student’s proposed resolutions request independent educational evaluations, behavior therapy and academic services, compensatory education, and attorney fees. 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. 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: July 15, 2016
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings