California OAH special education order · April 25, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022040464 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because all three issues, the supporting facts, and the proposed resolutions gave Davis enough understanding to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
Summary
Davis filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that Davis failed to offer an appropriate IEP, including mental health and related services, and did not inform Parent about the continuum of placements. It also alleged that Davis failed to provide services and placement consistent with the IEP and gave no in-person supports. OAH held that all three issues and the facts were adequately pleaded, noted that the complaint included specific proposed resolutions, deemed it sufficient, and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaint requirements liberally. A complaint that clearly identifies the issues, gives supporting facts, and proposes specific resolutions will usually survive a district's insufficiency challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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.
DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040464
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
APRIL 25, 2022
On April 14, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Davis Joint Unified School District, called Davis. On April 22, 2022, Davis 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 three issues during the two-year statutory period.
Issue One alleges that Davis denied Student educational benefit, and infringed on Parent’s right to meaningful participation, by failing to implement an appropriate individualized education program, called an IEP, to meet Student’s needs. Specifically, Student asserts that Davis failed to: offer sufficient services to meet Student’s mental health needs; sufficient direct and related services to ensure Student’s meaningful progress; advise Parent about the continuum of educational placements and available services; and consult with Parent to develop a learning continuity and attendance plan.
Issue Two of Student’s complaint alleges that Davis denied Student a free appropriate public education, called a FAPE, by failing to provide appropriate educational services and placement which comport with Student’s IEP, and meet Student’s needs. Issue Three of Student’s complaint alleges that Davis failed to provide any in-person supports to Student to maintain Student’s levels of functioning and safety.
All three issues of Student’s complaint are sufficient to provide Davis with an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of Student’s complaint.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Davis to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student’s complaint also includes specific proposed resolutions to address the problems alleged. Accordingly, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings