California OAH special education order · May 22, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017050173 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH found Student's complaint about an unsent daily log and an unscheduled IEP meeting sufficient, because Oak Grove already knew the facts and dates from Parents' direct complaints to the school.
Summary
Oak Grove School District filed a notice of insufficiency, arguing it needed the dates of each allegation in Student's three-issue complaint. The complaint alleged that a daily log required by an IEP addendum was not being sent home, that the log was given to another student to take home, and that a requested IEP meeting was never scheduled. OAH found the complaint sufficient. Parents had complained directly to the school, the claims necessarily related to the current IEP, and the school could give the dates to its own attorneys.
Why it matters
A complaint does not need exact dates when the district already knows the facts from the parent's prior complaints to the school. Districts cannot use a sufficiency challenge to demand details they already have.
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. 2017050173 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
OAK GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On May 3, 2017, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Oak Grove School District. On May 18, 2017, Oak Grove 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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 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
Student’s complaint contains three issues. Issue 1 alleges that a daily log is not being sent home as agreed to in an individualized education program addendum. Issue 2 claims that the log was given to another student to take home to Parents. Issue 3 claims that an IEP team meeting has been requested to discuss the daily log protocol, but no meeting has been scheduled.
Oak Grove’s notice of insufficiency claims that it needs to know what dates each of the allegations pertain to. However, it is obvious from reading the complaint that Parents have complained directly to the school about each of the allegations, so the school is aware of the dispute and facts surrounding the dispute. In addition, the allegations necessarily relate to the individualized education program now in effect. The school should be able to provide the dates of the events to their attorneys, and should be able to participate in a meaningful resolution session, mediation and case preparation for hearing. The Administrative Law Judge convening the prehearing conference in this matter can clarify the issues with the parties at that time. 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: May 22, 2017
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings