California OAH special education order · January 26, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017010727 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave District enough notice of claims about missed areas of need, missing goals, and inadequate services, even though it included five pages of legal discussion.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged District denied Student a free appropriate public education from March 2015 to the present by failing to assess and identify all areas of need, failing to write measurable goals in all areas of need, and failing to provide related services in all areas of need. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It gave supporting facts, including a February 2015 independent evaluation showing writing and math needs the IEP left out, behavior concerns the IEP did not address, a cut in services, and poor grades. Its requests for compensatory education and an appropriate program were well-defined, so all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH looks for concrete facts, not legal argument. Pointing to specific evaluations, IEP gaps, and grades can carry a complaint even when much of it is legal discussion that OAH says is not a factual statement of the problem.
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 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:
OAH Case No. 2017010727
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
v. SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
SAN MATEO FOSTER CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On January 24, 2017, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Mateo Foster City School District. On January 24, 2017, 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.)
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).
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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies one issue,2 alleging that District denied Student a free and appropriate public education from March 2015, to the present by (a) failing to assess and identify all of Student’s areas of need, (b) failing to provide measureable goals in all areas of need, and (c) failing to provide related services in all areas of need. Student alleges the February 2015 independent educational evaluation identified reading, writing, and mathematics as areas of need, however, that the corresponding individualized education program did not list writing or math as areas of need, and did not contain a math goal. Student alleges the District psychoeducational assessment from March 2015, and accompanying teacher reports, identified behavior as an area of concern, however behavior was not addressed in the IEP. Student also identifies a decrease in services from March 2015, to June 2015, and a failing grade in social studies and a D+ grade in math in February 2016. Student identifies adequate related facts about the issue to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Among Student’s proposed resolutions is that District provide Student with compensatory education and an appropriate educational program. 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 resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well-defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficient.
2 Student’s issue for hearing contains five pages of legal discourse of the IDEA, which is not a factual statement of the problem at issue.
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: January 26, 2017
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings