California OAH special education order · December 28, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016120108 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency because the detailed allegations about assessment, services, placement, and discrimination gave District fair notice of the issues.
Summary
Garden Grove Unified School District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It described in detail claims about a deficient December 2014 triennial assessment, Parents' lack of information to participate, and inadequate speech, academic, aide, community-based instruction, transition, AAC/assistive technology, and hearing loss supports. It also alleged disability discrimination. Because these facts let District respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that lays out specific problems and related facts will survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads pleading requirements liberally to protect families' access to a hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 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. 2016120108 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On December 2, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Garden Grove Unified School District. On December 19, 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student alleges, in detail, insufficient assessment of Student for his triennial individualized education program on December 4, 2014, a continuing failure of District to accurately assess Student’s performance or inform Parents of Student’s educational needs, and a failure to offer appropriate placement and services to address Student’s many areas of need. Student’s complaint raises claims that District failed toappropriately assess Student for his December 2014 triennial; provide Parents with sufficient information to meaningfully participate in designing Student’s educational program; meet Student’s needs in speech and language; provide compensatory speech therapy for sessions missed, offer appropriate goals or services in speech and language, reading, math, science, and social studies; provide appropriate aide services and proposing to fade out those services; provide appropriate community based instruction; provide adequate transition services; provide adequate augmentative and alternative communication/assistive technology; adequately address Student’s hearing loss, and that District discriminated against Student on the basis of his disability.
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 the claims is sufficient.
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: December 28, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings