California OAH special education order · February 21, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019020360 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH found Citrus Springs' complaint sufficient because it clearly stated two issues, independent assessments at public expense and assessing Student without parental consent, with enough facts for Student to respond.
Summary
Citrus Springs Charter School filed a due process complaint naming Student, and Student challenged it with a Notice of Insufficiency. The complaint raised two issues: whether Student is entitled to independent educational assessments at public expense in visual processing, central auditory processing, and occupational therapy, and whether Citrus Springs may assess Student under its June 2018 assessment plan without parental consent. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave enough related facts for Student to respond and take part in mediation. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads the sufficiency requirements loosely, so a district complaint that defends its own assessments or seeks to assess without consent will usually survive an insufficiency challenge if it names the issues and the basic facts. Parents should expect to prepare for hearing on the merits rather than count on getting the complaint thrown out.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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:
CITRUS SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL, OAH Case No. 2019020360 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. COMPLAINT
On February 9, 2019, Citrus Springs Charter School filed a Due Process Hearing Request]1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Student. On February 19, 2019, Student filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Citrus Springs’ 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, 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 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).
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 Citrus Springs’ complaint are sufficient to put the Student on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Citrus Springs identifies two issues in its complaint: (1) if Student is entitled to visual processing, central auditory processing, and occupational therapy independent educational assessments at public expense; and (2) if Citrus Springs may assess Student under its June 2018 assessment plan without parental consent. Citrus Springs further identifies adequate related facts about both issues to permit Student to respond to the complaint and participate in mediation. Therefore, Citrus Springs’ complaint is sufficient.
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: February 21, 2019
CYNTHIA FRITZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings