California OAH special education order · September 26, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018090720 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient because it described two years of failing grades, low test scores, and discipline that put Victor Valley on notice it should have assessed Student.
Summary
Victor Valley filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Student alleged the District failed its child find duty despite two years of notice of academic struggles, low test scores, and behavior problems that led to suspension and expulsion proceedings. OAH found the complaint identified the issue and gave enough related facts for Victor Valley to respond, take part in a resolution session, and prepare for hearing. The prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A child find complaint can meet the pleading standard by describing the warning signs the district saw, such as failing grades, test scores, and discipline, and stating that the student should have been assessed. OAH reads pleadings liberally.
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 FR 46540-46541, 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. 2018090720 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On September 18, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Victor Valley Union High School District. On September 21, 2018, Victor Valley 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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies the Office of Administrative Hearings and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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 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).
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 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 alleges that Victor Valley has failed in its “child find” duties. Student’s complaint includes factual assertions that Victor Valley has been on notice of Student’s academic struggles and behavior challenges for the past two years including failing grades, low test scores, and disorderly conduct including a physical alteration, suspension and expulsion proceedings. Student alleges that he should have been referred for assessment and found eligible for special education services. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Victor Valley on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.
Student’s complaint identifies the issue and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Victor Valley to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and prepare for hearing.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. The prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
DATE: September 26, 2018
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings