California OAH special education order · December 7, 2016
Order Finding Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2016120099 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it set out three year-by-year FAPE claims with details on missing assessments, defective IEPs, and needed placement and services, giving District enough notice to respond.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that District failed to properly assess and address Student's social and academic delays related to autism, and denied a FAPE from November 18, 2014 through the 2016-2017 school year. ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee found that the complaint described, for each period, the assessments that should have been done, the defects in the IEPs, and the placement and services sought. That was enough to let District respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, so all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that breaks claims into time periods and states the specific assessments, IEP defects, and services at issue for each one is likely to survive a sufficiency challenge. OAH reads pleading requirements liberally.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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. 2016120099 v. ORDER FINDING DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On November 18, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Torrance Unified School District. On December 5, 2016, District 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
Student’s complaint alleges that Student has social and academic delays due to his autism, but District has failed to appropriately assess or address Student’s educational needs.
Student claims that District denied him a FAPE by: (1) failing to offer a FAPE from November 18, 2014 through the end of the 2014-2015 extended school year; (2) failing to offer FAPE for the 2015-2016 school year and extended school year, and (3) failing to offer FAPE for the 2016-2017 school year. For each issue, Student details the assessments he alleges should have been done at that time, how the IEP documents were defective or insufficient, and which special education placement and related services he contends Student should have received.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of claims is sufficient.
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: December 7, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings