California OAH special education order · November 6, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018101020 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Kern County's argument that two duplicative issues made one insufficient, because duplication is not a basis for a notice of insufficiency.
Summary
Kern County Superintendent of Schools filed a notice of insufficiency. It argued that Student's issues two and four were the same and that one of them should be found insufficient. OAH held that claimed duplication is not a proper ground for an insufficiency challenge, and Kern County offered no other argument. The complaint gave enough facts about Student's anxiety-related concerns and the need for mental health assessments, and Kern County itself showed it understood the issues, so the complaint was sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice of the problem, the facts, and a proposed resolution. Districts cannot use it to trim issues they consider overlapping, and parents' complaints are read liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Educ. Code § 56502
- 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. 2018101020 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
KERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF COMPLAINT
SCHOOLS.
On October 22, 2018 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Kern County Superintendent of Schools. On November 5, 2018 Kern County filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. Specifically, Kern County aver Student’s issues number two and four are the same issue and as such one of them should be deemed insufficient.
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.)
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 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).
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 Kern County on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student’s petition put Kern County on notice of Student’s anxiety-related concerns and the need for Kern County to provide Student mental health related assessments as a result of this notice.
Kern County moved to have one of Student’s issues, either issue two or issue four, deemed insufficient arguing the issues are duplicative. This is not the basis of a notice of insufficiency. Kern County provided no other argument supporting its request. Moreover, Kern County, demonstrates “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the compliant.”
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: November 6, 2018
TIFFANY GILMARTIN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings