California OAH special education order · July 6, 2016
Order Determining Student's Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2016061096 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency, because it detailed the alleged failures on goals and services in reading, writing, and math with specific facts and requested relief.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that District failed to provide appropriate goals and educational services for a seven-year-old first grader eligible under speech and language impairment, especially in reading, writing, and math. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it named the people involved, gave dates and details of assessments and IEP meetings, described communications between Parent and District, and stated the relief requested. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that gives dates, names, assessment details, IEP offers, and specific requested relief will hold up against a sufficiency challenge. OAH reads complaints liberally and asks only whether the district has enough notice to prepare.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 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. 2016061096 v. ORDER DETERMINING STUDENT’S
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On June 17, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Torrance Unified School District (District). On July 1, 2016, District timely 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, 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 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).
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 District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student is seven years old and eligible for special education services under the category of speech and language impairment. Student resides with her parents within District and attends first grade at a District school. In sum, the complaint alleges District failed to provide appropriate goals for Student and to provide educational services to meet Student’s needs, particularly in the areas of reading, writing and math. The factual allegations include the names of the individuals involved in assessing and providing educational services to Student; the dates and particulars of assessments and assessment tools and results; the dates of IEP meetings and the details of the program offered; description by date, author and recipient of communication between parents and District; and the particular relief and remediation requested.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem sufficient to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation, and to prepare for a due process hearing.
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: July 06, 2016
MARIAN H. TULLY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings