California OAH special education order · October 4, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016090620 · ALJ Cheryl Carlson
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Woodland enough notice of alleged failures to address apraxia, consider general education placement, and provide a 1:1 aide and speech services from 2014 to 2016.
Summary
Woodland filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging every issue in Student's due process complaint. Woodland argued the issues were vague, confusing, and not specific, and that Student did not name the exact IEP being challenged. OAH disagreed and found the complaint sufficient. It said the complaint alleged that Woodland failed to address Student's apraxia at IEP meetings from 2014 to 2016, did not honor Parents' requests for general education placement, and denied a 1:1 aide and appropriate speech services, which was enough for Woodland to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
Why it matters
A complaint does not have to name one specific IEP to be sufficient. Describing the problem, the time period, and the services denied can be enough notice to the district.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- 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. 2016090620 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
WOODLAND JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 14, 2016, Parents on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming the Woodland Joint Unified School District. On September 29, 2016, Woodland timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to all issues raised in 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, broad remedial purposes of the IDEA and the relative informality of the due process 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).
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
Woodland alleges the complaint is too vague; that the issues are confusing and unclear; that the issues lack specificity as to the exact problem; and, that Student did not identify the precise IEP at issue. However, Student’s complaint does allege facts sufficient to put Woodland on notice of the issues and proposed resolutions forming the basis of the complaint.
Student pled, for example, that Woodland failed to address Student’s needs related to his alleged apraxia at all of his IEP meetings over the period from 2014 to 2016; that Parents requested a general education placement over this time period; and that Woodland denied Student services such as a 1:1 aide and appropriate speech services. Student’s complaint sufficiently identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Woodland to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution sessionand mediation.
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: October 4, 2016.
CHERYL CARLSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings