California OAH special education order · July 5, 2022
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2022060676 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH denied Student's request for stay put funding at Telos Academy because Parents placed Student there unilaterally and no district ever agreed to or implemented that residential placement through an IEP.
Summary
Student asked OAH to order Tamalpais to fund Student's placement at Telos Academy, a residential treatment center, as stay put while the case is pending. Tamalpais opposed, arguing that Parents placed Student there on their own and that Telos is not Student's current IEP placement. OAH agreed. Student's last agreed-upon and implemented placement came from a November 18, 2020 IEP at Hall Middle School in Larkspur-Corte Madera. Parents did not consent to Tamalpais's April 2021 transition IEP offer, and the later placements at Elements Wilderness Therapy Program and Telos Academy were never agreed to or implemented by any district.
Why it matters
Stay put protects the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP placement, not a private placement parents choose on their own. Parents who place a child unilaterally generally cannot use stay put to make a district pay for that placement while the dispute is pending, though they may still seek reimbursement through the hearing itself.
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)
- 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.
LARKSPUR-CORTE MADERA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022060676
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
JULY 05, 2022
On June 22, 2022, Student filed a motion for stay put requesting the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, to order Tamalpais Union High School District to fund Student’s placement at Telos Academy, a residential treatment center.
On June 27, 2022, Tamalpais filed an opposition on the grounds that Parents unilaterally placed Student at Telos Academy and that it is not Student’s current educational placement pursuant to an Individualized Education Program, referred to as IEP.
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.)
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).)
DISCUSSION
Student’s last agreed upon placement was from his IEP dated November 18, 2020, in Larkspur-Corte Madera School District, an elementary school district. Student attended Hall Middle School within Larkspur-Corte Madera. On April 26, 2021, Tamalpais convened a transition IEP team meeting for Student and offered a placement within the high school district, including 234 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction. Parents did not consent.
On June 14, 2021, Parents unilaterally placed Student in Elements Wilderness Therapy Program, followed by a unilateral placement at Telos Academy on September 16, 2021. Neither Larkspur-Corte Madera nor Tamalpais agreed to place Student in a residential treatment center pursuant to an IEP. Furthermore, Student’s placement in Telos Academy was never implemented by Tamalpais or any other local educational agency. As such, Student’s unilateral placement at Telos Academy is not his current educational placement under the IDEA. Accordingly, Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings