California OAH special education order · October 8, 2024
Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference
OAH Case No. 2024090958, 2024080727 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH set a consolidated videoconference hearing for October 15, 2024, on Student's FAPE claims and District's request to exit Student from special education without parental consent.
This case went to decision
Student v. Lodi Unified School District (consolidated): Lodi Unified may exit a sixth grader from special education without parental consent; all of the student's claims denied. (2024)
Summary
After a prehearing conference, OAH set a consolidated due process hearing by videoconference starting October 15, 2024. Student's issues challenge the April 2023 IEP (goals, aide, behavior services, counseling, ABA, ESY, parent training), District's failure to assess for dyslexia, and the failure to develop an IEP in May 2024. District's issue asks whether it may exit Student from special education without parental consent. Student withdrew a separate paraeducator issue as covered by the one-to-one aide issue, each side bears the burden on its own issues, and the hearing is open to the public at Student's request.
Why it matters
A district can file its own case to exit a student from special education over parent objection, and it then carries the burden to prove the student no longer qualifies. Parents should check the PHC order's issue list carefully, because only issues stated there will be heard.
Key authority cited
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
- Ed. Code § 56505.1, subd. (h)
- Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
- Gov. Code § 11425.20
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024090958
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024080727
ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE FOR
HEARING BY VIDEOCONFERENCE
OCTOBER 8, 2024
On October 7, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Laurie Gorsline, Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH. The prehearing conference is called a PHC.
Ryan Song, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Colleen Villarreal, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Lodi Unified School District. The PHC was recorded. Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION
DUE PROCESS HEARING
The hearing will take place on October 15 through 17, 2024, and continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ. The hearing shall begin at 9:30 AM each day and generally end at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise ordered. The parties anticipate it will take four to eight days to complete the hearing. Additional hearing dates will be discussed with the ALJ during the hearing.
HEARING LOCATION
OAH is authorized to conduct due process hearings by videoconference or telephone. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) OAH will conduct the due process hearing by videoconference using the Zoom application. Unless otherwise ordered, participants are required to appear by videoconference using computer or device with video capability and Zoom.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates and shall subpoena witnesses, if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will appear to testify. A party’s failure to notify or subpoena a witness to testify will not be considered good cause to continue the hearing. Instructions for issuing and responding to subpoenas and optional forms for subpoenas can be found on the website at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Case-Types/Special- Education/Forms/Subpoenas?search=special%20education%20subpoena.
ISSUES AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
The issues at the due process hearing, and proposed resolutions, as alleged in the complaint and clarified by the parties and the ALJ during the PHC are set forth below.
Among other things, during the PHC, Student withdrew the issue pertaining to the additional paraeducator because it was covered by the issue pertaining to the one-to- one aide. A free appropriate public education is called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.
The parties are required to immediately file a written objection if the issues stated in this Order do not reflect their understanding of the issues clarified at the PHC or if they otherwise object to any stated issue. Any objections will be addressed on the first day of hearing. The ALJ may request further clarification of the issues on the first day of hearing.
On the first day of hearing, the parties shall clarify whether the May 2024 IEP at issue in Student’s Issue 3 and District’s Issue took place on May 14 or May 15, 2024.
ISSUES
STUDENT’S ISSUES
1. Did Lodi Unified School District deny Student a FAPE in the April 5, 2023
IEP by:
A. Failing to make a clear written offer because of the misspellings, missing page numbers, extraneous or incorrect information in or attached to the IEP? B. Failing to develop any goals addressing Student’s needs regarding self-help, depression, atypicality, adaptability, inattention, and behavior rigidity to help him stay on task, regulate his emotions, and manage his assignments? C. Regarding the goals offered, failing to make clear who was responsible for observing and documenting Student’s efforts beyond mention of the general teacher data/records? D. Failing to offer a one-to-one aide for the entire school day? E. Failing to offer behavior intervention services? F. Failing to offer a behavior intervention plan? G. Failing to offer individual counseling services? H. Failing to offer home-based applied behavior analysis services in the form of behavior therapy and clinical meetings? I. Failing to offer extended school year services for summer 2023 to address regression? J. Failing to offer parent training?
2. Did Lodi Unified School District deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess
Student in all areas of need, specifically, failing to assess Student between April 5, 2023, and the filing of the complaint on August 20, 2024, for possible dyslexia, including failing to conduct a psycho-motor development assessment to identify any deficits in visual-perceptual skills?
3. Did Lodi Unified School District deny Student a FAPE by failing to develop
an IEP at the May 14, 2024 IEP team meeting?
DISTRICT’S ISSUE
4. May Lodi Unified School District exit Student from special education
without parental consent based on its determination at the May 15, 2024 IEP team meeting that Student was no longer a child with a disability who needed special education and related services?
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
The resolutions requested by Lodi Unified School District include an order that it is legally entitled to exit Student from special education without parental consent based on its determination at the May 15, 2024 IEP team meeting that Student was no longer a child with a disability who required special education and related services.
The resolutions requested by Student include an order that Lodi Unified School District denied Student a FAPE and requiring it to develop an appropriate IEP, which includes a one-to one aide for the entire school day, paraeducator additional adult support for the 2024-2025 school year, extended school year services for summer 2025, parent training, and contingent tutoring. Student also seeks non-public agency funding for a functional behavior assessment and development of a behavior intervention plan, individual counseling, a home applied behavior analysis program, and independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, dyslexia, speech and language and occupational therapy. Student seeks an order requiring Lodi Unified School District staff training, compensatory education and reimbursement, including transportation.
Lodi Unified School District filed its response to Student’s complaint on August 30, 2024. (M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.)
EXHIBITS
The parties shall serve their exhibits on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). The parties shall upload their exhibits electronically according to the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically.
Timely uploading electronic hearing exhibits five business days before the first day of hearing constitutes that party’s timely exchange of evidence in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). If further assistance is needed, please contact OAH at OAHSEOps@dgs.ca.gov.
Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not timely exchanged as required by Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7) shall not be admitted into evidence at the hearing unless the ALJ rules that it is admissible.
IDENTIFYING EXHIBITS AND PAGE NUMBERS
Each exhibit must be identified by a letter and number. Student must use the letter S before the number to identify Student’s exhibits. District must use the letter D before the number to identify its exhibits. For example, S-1 means Student’s exhibit 1 and D-1 means District’s exhibit 1. A cover sheet with this identifying letter and number should be the first page of each exhibit. The electronic evidence program will automatically number the exhibits and additional page numbering or bates stamping should not be added.
CONTENT
Each exhibit must consist of one document. Separate documents may not be combined into one exhibit. Emails or letters may be consolidated into one exhibit if they are part of a single chain of messages. Exhibits should be in chronological order.
Parties should include resumes or curriculum vitae for each witness expected to testify as an expert.
District’s exhibits must include a copy of the school calendar for each school year in question, including the extended school year.
Electronic copies of exhibits filed with OAH shall be filed by 5:00 PM at least five business days before the first day of hearing. Please refer to the General Order OAH issued with the Scheduling Order that contains the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically. It includes instructions for how to file exhibits electronically.
Beginning three business days before the hearing, the electronic evidence system will not allow parties to upload exhibits unless permitted by the ALJ during the hearing at the ALJ’s discretion.
WITNESSES
The parties shall serve their list of witnesses on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505. No party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not timely disclosed except for good cause shown, supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and at the discretion of the ALJ.
Parties are responsible for ensuring that all participants are familiar with and follow the Instructions for Joining the Online Due Process Hearing provided with this Order. Participants who have not previously used the Zoom application, may find informative instructions on at by visiting, Getting Started with Zoom at https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/categories/200101697.
The parties are responsible for ensuring that witnesses join the virtual hearing room at the designated date and time to testify. Witnesses are required to join the due process hearing by computer and appear by videoconference unless they do not have the necessary computer equipment. If a witness does not have the necessary equipment, the ALJ may permit the witnesses to appear by audio only or by telephone.
“Audio only” means using a computer without video. A witness’s inability to attend the hearing by videoconference will be discussed at the start of the hearing.
The parties are responsible for producing their own witnesses unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ. Parties shall make witnesses under their control reasonably available. The parties must schedule their witnesses to avoid delays in the hearing and to minimize or eliminate the need for calling witnesses out of order.
The ALJ has discretion to limit the number of witnesses and the time allowed for testimony. Education Code section 56505.1, subdivision (h), empowers the ALJ to set a reasonable limit on the length of the hearing after consideration of four factors. The first two factors are the issues to be heard and the complexity of facts to be proven. The second two factors are the ability of the parties or their representatives to present their respective cases and the parties’ estimates of the time needed to present their cases.
MEET AND CONFER
The parties are encouraged to review and shorten their witness and exhibit lists before the hearing. Evidence may be excluded if it is repetitive, cumulative, or insufficiently probative to justify the time it would take to hear such evidence.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than October 9, 2024, at 4:00 PM to discuss scheduling witnesses and how much time each witness will take to testify. The parties shall discuss any issues related to counsel and witnesses appearing by videoconference for hearing, electronically viewing exhibits during the hearing, and subpoenas, if any. The parties should attempt to eliminate duplicate exhibits from their hearing exhibits. The parties shall discuss whether they can produce a written stipulation as to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and the authenticity and admissibility of documents to shorten the length of time needed for the hearing.
As part of the meet and confer process, District shall inform Student which proposed Student witnesses are District employees. District shall also identify the witnesses on Student’s list that require a subpoena. District may agree to accept service for a witness under its control or provide Student with the witness’s most recent contact information.
Any contact information provided shall be used for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas or for contacting a witness to attend the hearing. Any contact information shall not be disclosed to any other person.
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM
Both parties have an ongoing obligation to ensure that OAH has current information on the Participant Information Form filed with OAH and shall file an updated Form as necessary. The Participant Information Form is not served upon the opposing party. The ongoing obligation to ensure that the Participant Information Form filed with OAH is current does not change the parties’ statutory obligation to timely disclose their witnesses to the other party(s) at least five business days prior to hearing.
The parties must file an updated Participant Information Form to inform OAH of any changes, additions, or deletions, including the required information no later than 5:00 PM at least two business days before the first day of hearing.
EVIDENCE PRESENTATION
In an administrative proceeding, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the party requesting the hearing. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 62.) In this case, Student bears the burden of proof on Student’s Issues and District bears the burden of proof on District’s Issue. In this consolidated matter, Student’s case-in-chief shall be presented first, followed by District, unless otherwise ordered.
WITNESS LISTS
The parties must provide a joint proposed witness list to the ALJ on the first day of hearing. The list should include the first and last name of the witness, which party is calling the witness to testify, and include dates and time estimates of each witness’s expected testimony. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, each party shall prepare a separate written list. The parties must have witnesses available in case there is no agreement.
At the beginning of the hearing, the ALJ and the parties will discuss the length of time anticipated for each witness and scheduling issues for individual witnesses. The ALJ will finalize the witness schedule. Parties must be prepared at the end of each day to discuss the witnesses to be presented the next day and the estimated time for the testimony of each witness.
SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION
Each witness will be called to testify only once, except for rebuttal purposes. All parties must examine a witness on all issues when the witness is first called to testify.
Requiring a witness to appear only once takes priority over the order in which parties present their case-in-chief.
AUDIO ONLY OR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY
Whether a witness may appear by audio only or telephone instead of videoconference is a matter within the discretion of the ALJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) Any party seeking to present a witness by audio only or telephone shall request permission to do so before the hearing. Any party seeking to present a witness who cannot access exhibits electronically must inform the ALJ at the beginning of the hearing.
ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS
AUDIO RECORDING
A party may request permission to make an audio recording of the hearing.
Permission to make an audio recording is subject to the ALJ’s discretion and based upon the following conditions:
1. the OAH recording is the only official recording;
2. the parties shall turn their recording device on and off at the same time
that the ALJ is on and off the record to avoid recording conversations while off the record;
3. operation of the party’s recording mechanism will not be allowed to delay
the hearing;
4. a party’s recording may not be given, provided or played to a witness, or
potential witness;
5. the recording is subject to the same confidentiality as the due process
hearing; and
6. participants shall not take screenshots of the videoconference nor share or
publish any portion of the videoconference or audio recording.
Student’s and District’s requests to make an audio recording of the hearing are granted subject to the above conditions, unless otherwise ordered.
VIDEO RECORDING
No party, witness or anyone else may videorecord any part of the proceedings or stream live through any means.
RECORDINGS AS EXHIBITS
Recordings may not be uploaded electronically without the ALJ’s permission. The ALJ has discretion to admit or exclude evidence in the form of a recording. Any request to submit a recording shall be considered at the time of hearing.
The ALJ may grant or deny the request or grant the request subject to certain conditions. The party offering the recording must establish that all or a part of the recording is relevant. The ALJ may request a transcript of the portion of the recording requested or have the party offering the recording to provide an exact identifiable portion of the recording the party seeks to admit. The identities of any person speaking on the portion of the tape being introduced must be established. An ALJ may allow the opposing party to offer additional portions of a recording to establish the context, or to rebut, the recording.
COMPENSATORY EDUCATION OR REIMBURSEMENT
Any party seeking reimbursement for expenditures shall present admissible evidence of these expenditures, or a stipulation to the amount of the expenditures. A party seeking compensatory education should provide evidence regarding the type, amount, duration, and need for any requested compensatory education. Documents offered as evidence to support a request for reimbursement must be separated by vendor.
MOTIONS
No prehearing motions are pending or contemplated. Any motion that was not filed three business days before the PHC, shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not timely filed.
STIPULATIONS
Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents are encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in writing prior to the start of the hearing.
CONDUCT OF PARTICIPANTS AND HEARING ROOM DECORUM
All participants to the videoconference should observe the same decorum as in an in-person due process hearing. Participants must conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner at all times. Cellular phones, telephones and computer notifications must be shut off or set to silent during the hearing unless the ALJ grants permission otherwise. Participants should appear from a private location, unless otherwise ordered. Participants should take reasonable efforts to minimize background noise and maintain adequate room lighting. Use of virtual background images are at the discretion of the ALJ. Witnesses are prohibited from reading exhibits, documents, notes, text messages, telephones or computers while testifying, unless permitted to do so by the ALJ. The parties, their representative and witnesses are prohibited from passing notes to, exchanging electronic messages with, or signaling the witness in any way while the witness is testifying.
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
Neither party requested an accommodation or interpreter.
A party or participant in this case, such as a witness, requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in a mediation or hearing may contact OAH at (916) 263-0880, or send an email to OAHADA@dgs.ca.gov as soon as the need is known. The e-mail should have “Request for Accommodation” in the Subject Line.
Additional information concerning requests for reasonable accommodation is available on OAH’s website at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Services/Page-Content/Office-of- Administrative-Hearings-Services-List-Folder/Request-Reasonable-Accommodations- for-OAH-Legal-Proceedings.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
The hearing is open to the public pursuant to Student’s request. Special education hearings are closed to the public unless a student requests the hearing to be open to the public.
An ALJ may restrict attendance because of the physical limitations of the hearing facility or take other action to promote due process or the orderly conduct of the hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 1, § 1030.) Government Code, section 11425.20 empowers the ALJ to order an open hearing to be closed or make other protective orders to the extent necessary or proper to ensure a fair hearing in the circumstances of the case.
SETTLEMENT
The parties are encouraged to continue working together to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing.
In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH by visiting OAH Secure e-file at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.
If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 4:00 PM the day prior to hearing, the parties shall leave a voicemail message regarding the settlement at (916) 274-6035. The parties should also leave contact information such as cellular phone numbers of each party or counsel for each party.
Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received and processed by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages before the hearing.
If the matter settles subject to board approval, in addition to a signed copy of the signature page of the settlement agreement, the parties shall provide the date of the next board meeting. The hearing dates will not be cancelled without this information.
FAILURE TO COMPLY
The failure to comply with this Order may result in the exclusion of evidence or other sanctions.
ORDER INCLUDES ALL RULINGS
This Order includes all rulings made at the prehearing conference. Any discussion and conversation not referenced in this Order is not binding on the ALJ conducting the hearing and may not be relied upon by the parties. The parties should be aware that, at hearing, the ALJ conducting the hearing has discretion to reconsider any part of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Laurie Gorsline Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings
