California OAH special education order · June 8, 2020
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2019090699 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Los Angeles confirmed it would keep implementing the September 12, 2019 IEP, so no dispute existed over Student's current placement.
Summary
Student asked OAH for a stay put order, apparently worried that Los Angeles would carry out a May 20, 2020 IEP that Parent had not consented to. Los Angeles responded that there was no placement dispute. Its counsel filed a sworn declaration with a June 4, 2020 email to Student's counsel saying the district would keep implementing the September 12, 2019 IEP, which both sides agreed was the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. OAH denied the motion because Student did not show any actual dispute about current placement. Student may refile with more detail if a dispute arises.
Why it matters
A stay put motion needs evidence of a real dispute over the student's current placement, not just concern that a district might implement an unconsented IEP. If the district confirms in writing that it will keep following the last agreed IEP, OAH is likely to deny the motion.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (d)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019090699
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
JUNE 8, 2020
On June 2, 2020, Student filed a motion for stay put. On June 5, 2020, Los Angeles filed a response that no dispute exists regarding Student’s placement. On June 8, 2020, Student filed a reply and the declaration of a member of Student’s counsel’s office authenticating the exhibits to Student’s motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed.Code, § 56505 subd. (d).)
This is referred to as “stay put.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the last agreed upon and implemented individualized educational program, called IEP, placement prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s motion appears to be grounded in speculation that Los Angeles would attempt to implement a recent May 20, 2020 IEP to which Parent has not consented.
Student’s exhibits, initially unauthenticated, include assessment reports, multiple IEPs, and Parent’s October 2, 2019 letter consenting to the services, supports, accommodations and goals contained in the September 12, 2019, none of which establish a dispute regarding Student’s current educational placement. Los Angeles provided the sworn declaration of its counsel with an authenticated email to Student’s counsel, dated June 4, 2020, stating that Los Angeles would continue to implement the September 12, 2019 IEP. There is no dispute that the September 12, 2019 IEP is Student’s last agreed upon and implemented IEP.
Here, Student has not alleged that a dispute exists regarding Student’s current educational placement. If a dispute exists, Student may file a request for stay put with more specificity as to the nature of the dispute and the terms of stay put. The motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings