California OAH special education order · July 12, 2023
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2023050954 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It challenged promotion from sixth to seventh grade, and Student alleged that the IEP team discussed grade retention, which makes it a possible special education issue for hearing.
Summary
Center Joint Unified challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that promoting Student from sixth grade to seventh grade (junior high) was an inappropriate placement because she could not benefit academically. OAH found the complaint sufficient. Grade promotion is not usually a special education issue, but Student alleged that retention was discussed at IEP team meetings, as shown by IEP documents and emails. That was enough to require a hearing on whether the IEP team should address the grade move and whether Student should attend junior high in 2023-2024.
Why it matters
A grade promotion or retention dispute that is usually a general education decision can still go to due process if the complaint shows the IEP team discussed it. Parents should point to IEP documents and emails that show this.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 FR 46540-46541
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT
V.
CENTER JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023050954
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
JULY 12, 2023
On June 28, 2023, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Center Joint Unified School District. On July 7, 2023, Center Joint Unified 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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies OAH and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).) Here, Center Joint Unified timely filed its notice of insufficiency.
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.].) Whetsher 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Center Joint Unified to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student states that Center Joint Unified is promoting Student from sixth grade, elementary school, to seventh grade, junior high school. Student’s complaint asserts that seventh grade is an inappropriate placement for Student. Student claims that she needs to remain in sixth grade, because she is not academically capable of benefiting from seventh grade.
Though promotion to the next grade is not typically a special education issue, Student’s complaint asserts that the retention of Student in sixth grade was discussed at the IEP team meetings, as confirmed by IEP documents and emails. Student has alleged sufficient facts to require an evidentiary hearing regarding whether Student’s move to seventh grade was, or should be, a matter to be addressed by the IEP team and, if so, whether Student should attend junior high school for the 2023-2024 school year.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is 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.
Clifford H. Woosley Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings