California OAH special education order · October 25, 2021
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2021090539 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Los Angeles showed by sworn declaration that Student was no longer being removed from class and had returned to her current placement, ending the dispute.
Summary
Student asked OAH for a stay put order to keep her current educational placement while the due process case was pending. Los Angeles opposed, arguing circumstances had changed. It filed a sworn declaration from Assistant Principal Yun Yu stating that Student was no longer being removed from her classroom for medical reasons, had rejoined her classmates, and would stay in her current placement. Because there was no longer a dispute about Student's interim placement, OAH denied the motion.
Why it matters
A district can defeat a stay put motion by restoring the student's placement and proving it with a sworn declaration. Parents should be ready to show that a removal or change is still happening if the district says it has stopped.
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
People named in the order
- Yun Yu, Assistant Principal (declarant for District)
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021090539
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
OCTOBER 25, 2021
On October 15, 2021, Student filed a motion for stay put. On October 20, 2021, Los Angeles filed an opposition on the ground that circumstances had changed and a stay put order was no longer necessary.
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
Los Angeles provided a sworn declaration from Assistant Principal Yun Yu stating that Student is no longer being removed from her classroom for medical reasons, has rejoined her classmates, and will continue in her current educational placement. There is no longer a dispute between the parties concerning Student’s interim placement. The motion for stay put is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings