California OAH special education order · April 11, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017031066 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's arguments that two issues lacked a specific time period and that the complaint omitted Father's address.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency arguing that Student's issues A1 and B did not state the time period at issue and that the complaint did not give Father's address. OAH found the complaint sufficient. The issues tied the claims to the June 2015 assessment report and the June 5, 2015 IEP meeting, which was enough to put District on notice. The address Student listed met the federal requirement, and any dispute about Student's actual residence went beyond a sufficiency review.
Why it matters
A complaint can meet the pleading standard by tying claims to specific assessments or IEP meetings, even without a stated date range. Factual disputes such as where the student lives are not grounds to find a complaint insufficient.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2017031066 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LAFAYETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On March 21, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Lafayette School District. On April 5, 1017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. On April 6, 2017, Student filed a response.
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 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).
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 District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies his name, date of birth, address, a description of the problem, and a proposed resolution. The issues and related facts Student alleges about the problem are adequate to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
District argues issues A1 and B of the complaint are insufficient because Student fails to allege the specific time period at issue. Student’s issue A1 alleges District denied him a free and appropriate public education by failing to timely assess and identify him as a student with a disability. Student alleges the June 2015 assessment report was neither timely nor appropriate as it did not qualify Student for special education services. Student’s issue B alleges District failed to offer a placement, program, and services that were reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit. Student specifically references the June 5, 2015 individualized education program meeting and Parents’ disagreement with District’s determination that Student does not qualify for special education services.
District also argues that the complaint is insufficient because it does not provide Student’s Father’s address. Student alleges an address in the complaint, which is sufficient for purposes of Section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(I). A factual dispute regarding Student’s current residential address extends beyond the analysis of the sufficiency of Student’s complaint.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the three 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: April 11, 2017
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings