California OAH special education order · February 6, 2017
Order Finding Student's Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2017010512 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It gave District enough notice of the claims: failure to assess, discounting Student's mental health issues, and denial of meaningful parent participation at the IEP meeting.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It alleged that District failed to properly assess Student after Parent's request, blamed Student's difficulties on absences instead of mental health issues, and did not give Parent information early enough to participate meaningfully in the IEP meeting. OAH also held that the complaint's references to Section 504 did not keep District from understanding that IDEA claims were being raised, and that the requested remedies of eligibility and evaluations were adequate.
Why it matters
Complaints are read liberally. A parent who describes the problem, the key facts, and the remedy sought can survive a sufficiency challenge even if the complaint mixes in Section 504 language.
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. 2017010512 v. ORDER FINDING STUDENT’S
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
EVERGREEN SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 18, 2017, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Evergreen School District. On January 24, 2017, 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 it authorizes. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, 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).
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 that Parent requested that Student be assessed for special education or Section 504 eligibility, but that District failed to conduct appropriate assessments. Student further alleges that District discounted Parent’s reports of how Student’s mental health issues impacted Student’s academic performance, and attributed Student’s difficulties to her absences from school. According to the complaint, Parent was not provided with information sufficiently prior to the individualized education program team meeting to participate meaningfully in the meeting, and Student was not found eligible for special education. As remedies, Student seeks special education eligibility, and evaluations focused on Student’s mental health and assistive technology.
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. Student’s references to Section 504 in the complaint do not render the claims insufficient to place District on notice that Student is also raising claims under the IDEA.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient.
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).) Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to her 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: February 6, 2017
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings