California OAH special education order · October 27, 2021
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2021100624 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because no IEP documents were attached, so the last agreed-upon and implemented placement could not be determined.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint and a motion for stay put, and Oakley Union Elementary School District opposed. Stay put keeps a student in the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP placement while a dispute is pending. Student attached no IEP documents to the motion, so the ALJ could not identify that placement. OAH denied the motion.
Why it matters
A stay put motion must include the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, along with proof it was implemented. Without those documents, OAH will deny the request no matter how strong the underlying claim is.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
OAKLEY UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021100624
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
OCTOBER 27, 2021
On October 21, 2021, Student filed a request for due process hearing and a motion for stay put. On October 26, 2021, Oakley Union Elementary School District filed an opposition to the 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.)
Student has failed to establish her current educational placement. No Individualized Education Program, or IEP, documents are attached to the motion. As a result, Student has not established the last agreed upon and implemented IEP. Without this information, Student’s stay put placement cannot be determined. Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings