California OAH special education order · November 16, 2020

Order Denying Student's Request for Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2020100542 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly

OAH denied Student's request to reconsider dismissing the Department of Children and Family Services, finding no new facts or law showing DCFS must provide special education or a free appropriate public education.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

Student's educational representative asked OAH to reconsider its November 9, 2020 order dismissing the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for lack of jurisdiction. Student said it never received DCFS's motion, so OAH treated the request as timely. OAH denied it because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law. OAH found that DCFS's duty to provide placements for medical, social, or emotional reasons under a separate law is not a duty to provide special education, and no statute or case requires DCFS to take part in educational decisions. The case continues against the five remaining education agencies.

Why it matters

Child welfare agencies such as DCFS are generally not proper parties in OAH special education cases, even when they place a child. Claims about educational placement belong against the responsible school district or county office of education. Reconsideration also requires new facts or law, not a repeat of earlier arguments.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11521
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
  • Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
  • M.S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2019) 913 F.3d 1119
  • Ed. Code, §§ 56500, 56028.5
  • Gov. Code, § 7575, subd. (a)(1)

Topics

reconsideration jurisdiction dcfs foster youth proper parties residential placement

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:

EDUCATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

v.

PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

PALMDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, LONG BEACH UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY SERVICES

OAH CASE NUMBER 2020100542

ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

NOVEMBER 16, 2020

On November 9, 2020, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order dismissing Department of Children and Family Services as a party in this matter for lack of jurisdiction. On November 12, 2020, Educational Representative on Behalf of Student filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the November 9, 2020 Order Granting Department of Children and Family Services’ Motion to be Dismissed as a Party for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Department of Children and Family Services, DCFS.

APPLICABLE LAW

The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period, generally within ten days.

(See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)

DISCUSSION

Student did not file an opposition to DCFS’ Motion to Dismiss because it alleges it was not served a copy of DCFS’s motion. Student’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed within a reasonable time after the November 9, 2020 Order was issued. Therefore, Student’s Motion for Reconsideration was timely and considered by OAH.

Student’s Request for Reconsideration offers no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration. The gravamen of Student’s argument is that DCFS is a public agency that has interagency responsibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as IDEA. Student conflates the obligation of other public agencies providing special education or related services to individuals with exceptional needs with DCFS’s obligation to provide services under a separate statutory scheme.

More specifically, Student confuses the obligation of a designated local educational agency to consider a student’s placement considering her educational needs with DCFS’s obligation to provide necessary and appropriate placement in accordance with a student’s medical, social or emotional problems. (See, e.g., M.S. by and through R.H. v.

Los Angeles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2019) 913 F.3d 1119, 1136 [school district required to consider whether a residential placement should have been offered to student for educational purposes as part of her individualized education program, notwithstanding that another agency, DCFS, had residentially placed student for mental health treatment under state law and pursuant to a Juvenile Court order.]) Student cites to no authority suggesting DCFS’s obligation to provide permanent placement services for a student for non-educational reasons confers upon it the responsibility to offer a student a free appropriate public education.

Student also equates DCFS with other public agencies who are designated as responsible parties to provide special education or related services to students. (Ed.

Code, §§ 56500 and 56028.5.) For example, Student relies on authority referencing the obligation of California Children’s Services to provide medically necessary occupational therapy and physical therapy by reason of a medical diagnosis and when contained in the child’s individualized education program. (Gov. Code, § 7575, subd. (a)(1).) Student cites to no statute or case authority that imposes an obligation on DCFS to provide special education and related services to a student or involve DCFS in any decisions regarding a student’s educational program.

ORDER

Student has not established the November 9, 2020 Order dismissing DCFS should be reconsidered. Accordingly, Student’s Request for Reconsideration of the November 9, 2020 Order is denied. All dates are confirmed. This matter shall proceed as currently scheduled as to Paramount Unified School District, Pasadena Unified School District, Palmdale Unified School District, Los Angeles County Office of Education and Long Beach Unified School District.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

{{sig1_es_:signer1:signature}} Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings