California OAH special education order · December 31, 2024

Order to Produce Supplemental Evidence

OAH Case No. 2024100221 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley

OAH ordered Student to produce a complete copy of the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP by January 12, 2025, or the stay put motion will be denied.

Ruling Stay put

Summary

Student filed a stay put motion, and Fontana Unified opposed it. Student's exhibits included a November 2, 2023, IEP with no Parent-signed consent page and notes from a May 21, 2024, amendment meeting that Parent did not consent to. Neither side's filings identified Student's last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. OAH ordered Student to produce a complete copy of that IEP by January 12, 2025, and said the motion will be denied if Student does not.

Why it matters

A stay put motion must show the last IEP the parent actually consented to and the district implemented. Attach the signed consent page, or OAH may deny the motion even when the district does not dispute the point.

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

stay put last agreed-upon iep parent consent supplemental evidence burden of proof

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.

FONTANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024100221

ORDER TO PRODUCE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE

DECEMBER 31, 2024

On October 4, 2024, Student filed a Request for Due Process with the Office of Administrative Hearing, called OAH, naming Fontana Unified School District as respondent. On December 20, 2024, Student filed a motion for stay put. On December 26, 2024, Fontana Unified filed an opposition to Student’s motion to stay put. On December 30, 2024, Student filed a reply to Fontana Unified’s opposition. On December 31, 2024, Fontana Unified filed a supplemental declaration in response to Student’s reply to opposition.

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 has failed to demonstrate what was the last agreed upon and implemented IEP placement prior to the dispute arising. Student’s counsel declared that the IEP documents, attached to Student’s motion as Exhibit A, were provided to counsel by Fontana Unified. Exhibit A consists of an IEP, dated November 2, 2023, and attached notes for an amendment IEP team meeting dated May 21, 2024. Exhibit A does not have a signature page, signed by Parent, consenting to the November 2, 2023, IEP.

Exhibit A has a signature page for the May 21, 2024, amendment IEP meeting, signed by the attendees. But Parent did not sign the consent to the amendment.

Fontana Unified did not acknowledge or identify the last, agreed upon, and implemented IEP, in its opposition to the motion. Parent’s declaration in reply to the opposition did not mention the IEP. Similarly, Fontana Unified’s declaration in response to Student’s reply to Fontana Unified’s opposition did not identify Student’s last agreed upon and implemented IEP placement prior to the filing of this matter.

Therefore, unless Student produces evidence establishing Student’s last agreed- upon and implemented IEP, the motion for stay put will be denied.

ORDER

1. Student shall produce evidence, specifically a complete copy of Student’s

last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, by close of business, January 12, 2025.

2. If Student does not produce such evidence by January 12, 2025, Student’s

Motion for Stay Put shall be denied.

Clifford H. Woosley Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings