California OAH special education order · June 28, 2022
Order Requiring Additional Evidence for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2022060611 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH deferred ruling on Student's stay put motion and ordered Student to file the complete last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, because the attached partial IEPs did not show the placement claimed.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint and a stay put motion against Los Angeles Unified School District, which filed a partial opposition. Student attached an initial IEP and several partial, more recent IEPs, but none clearly identified the IEP offer Student claimed as stay put. OAH ordered Student to file a document titled "Stay Put Motion Evidence" with all pages of the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP by July 5, 2022. Los Angeles may respond within three days in no more than five pages, without repeating arguments from its opposition.
Why it matters
A stay put motion should attach the complete, most recently agreed-upon and implemented IEP and clearly identify the placement being claimed. Partial IEPs can delay a ruling.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a)
- Johnson v. Special Education Hearing Office (2002) 287 F.3d 1176
- Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115
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 2022060611
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR STAY PUT
JUNE 28, 2022
On June 21, 2022, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing, naming Los Angeles Unified School District as respondent. That same day, Student filed a motion for Stay Put. On June 27, 2022, Los Angeles filed a partial opposition to the Stay Put motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his 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.” In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a).) All elements of placement are included in the IEP.
This case seeks Stay Put but does not provide evidence of the basis for the Stay Put order sought. Student has attached one IEP identified as Student’s initial IEP, and several partial, more recent IEPs.
For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student’s most recently implemented individualized education program. (Johnson v. Special Education Hearing Office (2002) 287 F. 3d 1176, 1180.) However, some exceptions apply to that rule. (Johnson, supra, 287 F. 3d at p.
1181; Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 1133 [rev’d on other grounds].) In this case, the documents attached to the Stay Put motion do not clearly state the IEP offer Student asserts is Stay Put. Thus, there is no basis on which to determine what the most recently agreed and implemented IEP placement is.
Student is ordered to file a document entitled “Stay Put Motion Evidence” that attaches the documents Student asserts is the last, agreed upon and implemented IEP.
This document must include all pages of the IEP. Student has until July 5, 2022, to file the IEP. Further argument is not necessary. Los Angeles will have three days from the date of service of the Stay Put Motion Evidence to file any response, which shall be limited to no more than 5 pages, including the caption page, and shall not repeat argument already included in its opposition to Student’s motion. If Los Angeles does not file a response to the Stay Put Motion Evidence, the matter shall be decided on the Stay Put Motion Evidence filed by Student and the arguments previously filed by both sides.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings