California OAH special education order · June 28, 2024
Order Determining Issue 4 in the Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024060562 · ALJ Linda Dowd
OAH found Student's Issue 4 sufficiently pled because it alleged Antioch provided no services during Student's two-month hospitalization at the start of the 2023-2024 school year.
Summary
Antioch filed a notice of insufficiency arguing that Student's Issue 4, which claimed a denial of FAPE for failing to implement services during the first two months of the 2023-2024 school year, lacked detailed facts. Student alleged that school began in August 2023, that she was hospitalized until October 2023, and that Antioch provided no services during that time. OAH found the issue sufficient because it identified the problem and gave enough facts for Antioch to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A short, plain statement of what went wrong and when, such as no services while a student was hospitalized, is enough to survive a sufficiency challenge. Parents do not need detailed legal analysis tying each fact to a FAPE denial.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 46540-46541, 46699
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.
ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024060562
ORDER DETERMINING ISSUE 4 IN THE DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
JUNE 28, 2024
On June 14, 2024, Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Antioch Unified School District. On June 28, 2024, Antioch filed a notice of insufficiency as to the complaint.
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, called FAPE; (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 Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260;
Sammons v. Polk County School Board (M.D.Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Board 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 46540-46541, 46699.)
Antioch alleges Student’s Issue 4 is insufficiently pled and should be dismissed.
Student’s Issue 4 alleges Antioch denied Student a FAPE by failing to implement her services during the first two months of the 2023-2024 school year. As factual support, Student alleges school started in August 2023, but she was hospitalized until October 2023, and she did not receive services from Antioch during her hospitalization. Antioch alleges Student failed to provide any detailed facts showing how it allegedly denied Student a FAPE and failed to make a correlation between the facts and an alleged denial of FAPE.
The facts alleged in Student’s Issue 4 are sufficient. Student identifies the issue, that Antioch denied her a FAPE by failing to provide services, and adequate facts about the problem, that she missed the first two months of school because she was hospitalized, and Antioch did not provide her services while she was hospitalized.
Antioch has enough information to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s Issue 4 is sufficient.
ORDER
1. Issue 4 in 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.
Linda Dowd Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings