California OAH special education order · August 29, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016080601 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that allegations about an untranslated IEP and a placement change made without Parent's consent adequately stated a parental-participation claim against MCOE.
Summary
Monterey County Office of Education challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint. OAH first found the challenge timely because MCOE's assistant superintendent declared under oath that MCOE did not receive the complaint until August 24, 2016. On the merits, OAH held the complaint sufficient. It alleged that Parent never received a translated copy of the August 4, 2016 IEP and could not understand the offer, and that MCOE then decided to send Student to a different school than the one offered, without Parent's consent. These facts stated a claim that MCOE significantly impeded Parent's participation in decisions about Student's FAPE, and the proposed resolutions (a translated IEP and a chance to observe the proposed classroom) were adequate.
Why it matters
A short, plain-language complaint can be enough if it explains what went wrong and what the family wants. Here, a missing IEP translation and a placement change made without consent were enough to state a claim that Parent's participation rights were violated. Districts can also show a sufficiency challenge is timely by proving when they actually received the complaint.
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. 2016080601 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
GREENFIELD UNION SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT AND MONTEREY COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION.
On August 10, 2016, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Greenfield Union School District and Monterey County Office of Education (MCOE). On August 16, 2016, Monterey Office of Education 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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies the Office of Administrative Hearings and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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 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).
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 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 was filed on August 10, 2016. MCOE submits the sworn declaration of its assistant superintendent of special education that it did not receive a copy of the complaint until August 24, 2016, when it was received from OAH. Accordingly, the notice of insufficiency was timely filed.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put MCOE on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student alleges that Parent requires a translation of Student’s individualized education program of August 4, 2016, but has not received one, so cannot understand the written offer made. The complaint also alleges that a MCOE representative contacted Parent and verbally informed Parent that the IEP offered one school, but that MCOE subsequently decided to send Student to another school, regardless of the written placement offer in the IEP, to which Parent has not consented. These facts sufficiently allege a claim that Student was denied a FAPE because MCOE significantly impeded the opportunity of Parent to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE to Student. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit MCOE to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the claim is sufficient.
Student’s proposed resolution request is a translated copy of the IEP and an opportunity to observe the proposed classroom(s). 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).) The proposed resolution stated in Student’s complaint 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 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: August 29, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings