California OAH special education order · September 12, 2018
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2018080788 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH denied Parent's request to reconsider an order requiring proof of her right to represent an adult Student, because privacy concerns are not new facts and the proceedings are confidential.
Summary
OAH ordered Parent to show why the case should not be dismissed unless she proved she held a transfer of the adult Student's educational rights or a conservatorship. Parent asked OAH to reconsider. She said she would not file full copies of those documents because of Student's privacy rights. OAH denied the motion because Parent offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, the Social Security number could be redacted, and the proceedings are confidential while Parent's right to represent Student is directly at issue.
Why it matters
A parent filing for a student who is 18 or older must be ready to prove legal authority, such as a transfer of educational rights or a conservatorship. Privacy concerns do not excuse filing those documents with OAH, because sensitive details can be redacted and the proceedings are confidential.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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. 2018080788 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On August 14, 2018, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings against Anaheim Union High School District.
On September 7, 2018, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed unless Parent establishes that she holds a transfer of Student’s educational rights or conservatorship over Student, who is over the age of eighteen.
On September 11, 2018, Parent on behalf of Student filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.
APPLICABLE LAW
OAH will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
Student submits no new or different facts, circumstances or law justifying reconsideration. Rather, Parent states she will not file full and complete copies of documents establishing a transfer of Student’s rights or conservatorship due to Student’s privacy rights.
Other than not wanting to disclose Student’s social security number, which may be redacted, Parent states no fact, circumstance or law establishing that the documents cannot be ordered produced, particularly as these proceedings are confidential and Parent’s right to represent Student in these proceedings is at issue. Accordingly, Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 12, 2018
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings