California OAH special education order · June 20, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017051293 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge to Issues Nine and Ten because they alleged a denial of FAPE through withholding of elective classes, with supporting facts.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Student's Issues Nine and Ten did not identify a law District violated and lacked enough facts to respond. OAH disagreed. It found the issues alleged a denial of FAPE caused by District withholding elective classes, and cited the December 3, 2015 IEP team meeting where District recommended Student not take an elective. OAH also found Student's proposed resolutions were well-defined, so the complaint was sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not have to cite a specific statute for each issue. It is enough to describe the problem, such as a FAPE denial from being kept out of elective classes, and give concrete facts like the date of the IEP meeting.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 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)
- Ed. Code § 56502
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. 2017051293 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On May 26, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Garden Grove Unified School District. On June 9, 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.)
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 the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. District contends Student’s Issues Nine and Ten are not sufficiently plead because they do not specify a law that District supposedly violated, nor do they provide enough factual support for District to respond to the allegations.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues broadly as a denial of a FAPE, and specifically states in Issues Nine and Ten that the alleged denial of FAPE was due to District’s withholding of elective classes. Student identifies adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student specifically states that during the December 3, 2015 individualized education program team meeting District recommended that Student not participate in an elective class.
Among Student’s proposed resolutions is that District assess Student for applied behavior services, and to the extent necessary provide such services, provide speech and language therapy, and fund an independent educational evaluation. 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 sufficiently pled.
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: June 20, 2017
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings