California OAH special education order · February 5, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019010400 · ALJ Christine Arden
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged Placentia denied a FAPE by failing to offer an appropriate nonpublic school placement and services, and proposed a resolution.
Summary
Placentia filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it put Placentia on notice of one issue: Student was denied a FAPE because Placentia failed to offer an appropriate placement and services, which Student described as a nonpublic school with a high level of individual behavioral support and one hour a week of counseling, across all IEPs in the statutory period. The complaint's request for independent educational evaluations in functional behavior and social-emotional functioning met the requirement to propose a resolution, and all hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names one clear FAPE claim, describes the placement and services the family believes are needed, and states the remedy sought can survive a sufficiency challenge, because pleading rules are read liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Ed. Code § 56502
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. 2019010400 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
PLACENTIA-YORBA LINDA UNIFIED COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 11, 2019, Student filed a Complaint for Due Process Hearing 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District. On January 22, 2019, Placentia 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.)
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, 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).
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 Placentia on notice of the sole issue forming the basis of the complaint. The complaint sufficiently alleges that Student was denied a free appropriate public education because Placentia failed to offer him an appropriate placement and services, which Student contends was “an appropriate nonpublic school setting with a high level of individual behavioral support and 1 hour a week of counseling.” All IEPs within the statutory time period are at issue. Student’s complaint identifies the issue and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Placentia to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of one claim is sufficient.
A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The complaint seeks independent educational evaluations in the areas of functional behavior and social-emotional functioning. Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him at the time.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
DATE: February 05, 2019
CHRISTINE ARDEN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings