California OAH special education order · June 23, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017060896 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the time period, the IEP at issue, or which services and accommodations were inadequate and how; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Student's complaint did not say when the problems happened, what services and accommodations District provided, or how they fell short. OAH agreed. The complaint gave no time period, named no IEP, and did not describe which services or accommodations were inadequate or denied, or how that affected Student's progress. Student's proposed resolutions (more resources, tutoring, and compensatory education) were sufficient, and Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal.
Why it matters
A complaint that only says services were 'inadequate' or 'minimal' is not enough. Parents should name the specific time period, the IEPs at issue, the particular services or accommodations, and how their absence hurt the child's progress.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2017060896 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On June 14, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Long Beach Unified School District.
On June 21, 2017, District timely 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.)
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
Student’s complaint contends that District failed to provide adequate services and accommodations to Student, leading to a lack of academic progress, necessitating the help of a tutor, and overall, a denial of a free appropriate public education. The complaint argues that strategies and interventions implemented have been unsuccessful and that each year Student has been provided minimal services, accommodations and/or interventions.
District challenges the sufficiency of the complaint contending the complaint fails to identify the time period as to when the problem occurred, what services and accommodations were provided by District and how those services and accommodations were inadequate.
Student’s complaint fails to provide sufficient facts relating to the problem. The complaint does not identify the period of time as to when District allegedly failed to provide Student a FAPE nor does it identify the individualized education program at issue. The complaint also fails to describe the services and accommodations that were either inadequate or denied to Student. If the services and accommodations were inadequate, the complaint should specify how they were inadequate. The complaint should also describe how the denial or inadequacy of services and accommodations impacted Student’s ability to access his educational opportunities and make academic, social or behavioral progress.
The complaint falls short of providing District with an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint and as a result, it does not provide District with sufficient information to adequately prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. Therefore, Student’ complaint is insufficient.
Student’s proposed resolutions requests additional resources for Student, tutoring and compensatory education. 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 sufficiently defined and meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him at the time.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
DATE: June 23, 2017
ROMMEL P. CRUZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.