California OAH special education order · May 30, 2017
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2017041172 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student did not submit the last signed and implemented IEP or identify which IEP provisions Fremont was failing to implement.
This case went to decision
Fremont Unified School District v. Student: Fremont Unified may reassess a 10th grader with anxiety-related attendance problems without parent consent; services may stop if Student is not produced. (2017)
Summary
Student asked OAH to order stay put and relied on exhibits and testimony from a separate due process hearing in a Fremont-filed case involving the same Student. Fremont filed a response. OAH denied the motion. It explained that evidence from a hearing in another case will not be considered in a different case, even when the parties are the same. Student also submitted IEP meeting notes but not the last signed and implemented IEP, and the motion did not make clear which parts of the IEP Student wanted enforced as stay put or which parts Fremont was not implementing.
Why it matters
A stay put motion must include the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, including any signed addendums, and must spell out exactly which services or placement the district is failing to provide. Evidence filed in a different OAH case will not be considered, even if it involves the same Student.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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. 2017041172 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PUT
FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On May 22, 2017, Student filed a motion for stay put with OAH in the above- captioned case. On May 24, 2017, Fremont Unified School District filed a response to the motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006)1; Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).) This is referred to as “stay put.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student’s individualized education program, which has been implemented prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put makes reference to exhibits that were contained in binders the parties submitted during the due process hearing in a Fremont-filed case All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 edition, unless otherwise indicated.
concerning Student, OAH Case No. 2017021203. She also asks that testimony from that hearing also be considered.
Documents and testimony from a due process hearing in another matter cannot and will not be considered when a motion is filed in a different case, even if the case concerns the same parties. Student also submitted several documents with his stay put motion including several pages of notes from IEP team meetings. However, the last signed and implemented IEP (including any signed addendums) has not been submitted. Further, as Fremont indicates in its response to the motion, it cannot be determined from Student’s motion for stay put what portions of the IEP Student is claiming should be declared as stay put and which Fremont is not implementing. Accordingly, Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 30, 2017
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings