California OAH special education order · August 16, 2017
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2017070881 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student never filed the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, even after OAH ordered it, so no placement dispute was shown.
Summary
Student asked OAH for a stay put order. OAH ordered Student to file a copy of the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP within five days, and District opposed the motion. Student filed no IEP documents. OAH denied the motion because, without that IEP, Student had not shown any dispute over placement and services, but said Student may re-file with more detail about the dispute and a copy of the IEP.
Why it matters
A stay put motion must include the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP and a clear explanation of the placement dispute. Without them, OAH will deny the motion even though the student's right to stay put still exists.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- 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. 2017070881 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PUT
HAYWARD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On July 21, 2017, Student filed a Motion for Stay Put. On August 3, 2017, OAH issued an Order Requesting Supplemental Documents due to Student’s failure to include a copy of the last agreed-upon and implemented individualized education program. OAH ordered Student to provide a copy of the operative IEP within five days of the Order. On August 4, 2017, District filed an opposition to Student’s Motion.
Student did not file any IEP documents with OAH.
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); 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.)
DISCUSSION
Student is entitled to remain in his last agreed-upon and implemented placement while this matter is pending and an Order for stay put is generally not required unless a dispute over placement exists. Here, without producing the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, Student has not established a dispute exists as to Student’s placement and services. If there is a dispute that exists as to placement and services, Student may re-file a Motion for Stay Put with more specificity as to the nature of the dispute, including a copy of the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. Accordingly, Student’s Motion for Stay Put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 16, 2017
TARA DOSS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings