California OAH special education order · December 19, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017120155 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against the El Dorado charter SELPA because it clearly challenged whether three IEP meetings lacked a qualified SELPA member, giving El Dorado enough notice to respond.
Summary
El Dorado County Charter SELPA filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, which also named Rocklin Academy Family of Schools. OAH found the complaint sufficient as to El Dorado. The complaint asked whether IEP meetings on October 17, 2016, February 15, 2017, and June 5, 2017 were properly constituted without a qualified SELPA member, and it included enough facts for El Dorado to respond and take part in resolution and mediation. OAH did not decide whether El Dorado actually had to send staff to those meetings, and it made no finding on the other issues because they did not involve El Dorado.
Why it matters
A single clearly stated issue with supporting facts, such as missing SELPA representation at IEP meetings, can be enough to keep a SELPA in the case as a party. OAH reads complaints liberally at the sufficiency stage and does not decide the merits then.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 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. 2017120155 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
EL DORADO COUNTY CHARTER COMPLAINT
SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLAN
AREA and ROCKLIN ACADEMY
FAMILY OF SCHOOLS.
On December 1, 2017, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming El Dorado County Charter Special Education Local Plan Area and Rocklin Academy Family of Schools. On December 15, 2017, El Dorado 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 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 El Dorado on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint, and specifically the claim against El Dorado.
Student’s Issue AA on page 15 of Student’s complaint is “Did the District [Rocklin] fail to have any IEP meetings that were legally constituted with a qualified member from the SELPA?” Student places at issue in the complaint the composition of three IEP teams for meetings on October 17, 2016; February 15, 2017; and June 5, 2017. While no finding can be made at this stage of the proceedings as to whether El Dorado was required to have personnel at those meetings, this issue is adequately identified, and the complaint contains facts pertaining to this issue that would permit El Dorado to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. The remaining issues in the complaint do not pertain to El Dorado, and therefore no finding as to their sufficiency is made at this time.
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: December 19, 2017
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings