California OAH special education order · December 23, 2020
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Shasta County SELPA
OAH Case No. 2020120501 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Shasta County SELPA because it gave no facts showing how the SELPA was responsible for Student's education or placement; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
Student filed a complaint against Redding School District and Shasta County SELPA. It alleged that Student was in an educationally related mental health crisis and needed a residential treatment center placement. The SELPA filed a notice of insufficiency, and OAH agreed: the complaint stated no facts about what the SELPA did or how it was responsible for Student's placement. OAH noted that Shasta County Office of Education, which appears to run Student's school, may be the proper party, and allowed Student 14 days to amend or the SELPA will be dismissed. Hearing dates were confirmed as to Redding School District.
Why it matters
A due process complaint must connect each named agency to the problem with specific facts. Naming the wrong agency, such as a SELPA instead of the county office that operates the school, can get that party dismissed.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code, § 56505
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
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.
REDDING SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SHASTA COUNTY SELPA.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020120501
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT AS TO SHASTA COUNTY SELPA
DECEMBER 23, 2020
On December 15, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Redding School District and Shasta County Special Education Local Plan Area, referred to as Shasta County SELPA. On December 23, 2020, Shasta County SELPA filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency.
(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: (1) describes the problem relating to the proposed change regarding the Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the Student a free appropriate public education; (2) includes facts about the problem; and (3) includes a proposed resolution 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 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
Student’s complaint alleges one issue, that Student is having an educationally related mental health crisis and needs a residential treatment center placement. While Student’s complaint provides sufficient facts and information related to the problem as to the local education agency responsible for Student’s education, Student does not list any facts as to how Shasta County SELPA is responsible for her education.
Student’s complaint lists Excel Academy as her school of attendance and Igo-Ono-Platina Union Elementary School District as her district of residence. Based on information from its website, Excel Academy appears to be a Shasta County Office of Education school. Student does not provide any facts or information as to what, if any, action Shasta County SELPA took regarding Student’s placement or how Shasta County SELPA is responsible for any decisions related to her placement or Excel Academy. The complaint fails to provide Shasta County SELPA with the required facts relating to the problem.
It appears Shasta County Office of Education, and not Shasta County SELPA, may be the appropriate party to be named in this case. Student may amend her complaint to include Shasta County Office of Education as a named party. Student may also amend her complaint to include facts as to how Shasta County SELPA is responsible for Student’s education.
Student’s proposed resolutions request a residential treatment center placement.
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 proposed resolution stated in Student’s complaint has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to her at the time.
A parent without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D) as to Shasta County SELPA.
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, Shasta County SELPA will
be dismissed as a party.
5. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed as to Redding School District.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Linda Johnson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings