California OAH special education order · August 29, 2025
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2025030636 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student did not prove which IEP was last agreed upon and implemented. The submitted December 2023 IEP showed no Parent consent, and the May 2025 IEP was unconsented.
Summary
Student moved for stay put, first relying on a May 12, 2025 IEP and then filing a Notice of Errata saying a December 12, 2023 IEP was the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. Riverside opposed, saying it was implementing Student's IEP. OAH denied the motion. The December 2023 copy had no signature page, contained handwritten comments showing disagreement, and was missing pages, while the May 2025 IEP had never been consented to, so Student did not carry the burden of showing the last consented and implemented IEP.
Why it matters
The party seeking stay put must prove which IEP was last consented to and implemented. Parents should submit a complete IEP with the signed consent page, because incomplete or unsigned copies can defeat an otherwise valid stay put request.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (d)
- 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.
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025030636
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
AUGUST 29, 2025
On August 22, 2024, Student filed a motion for stay put with an individualized education program dated May 12, 2025. Four days prior, Student filed a Notice of Errata, with a declaration from counsel, that the IEP dated December 12, 2023, and provided with the Notice of Errata, was the last agreed upon and implemented IEP for Student. On August 21, 2024, Riverside filed an opposition on the grounds that Riverside is implementing Student’s 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.)
Student provided two different IEP versions. The December 12, 2023, copy Student provided fails to demonstrate Parent consented to this IEP. There is no signature page and there are numerous handwritten comments that indicate disagreement with the IEP. Moreover, the IEP provided is missing pages 21 through 35 and 36 through 40. The second IEP Student provided was dated May 12, 2025. This is an unconsented IEP.
Student carries the burden in this motion to demonstrate what was Student’s last consented and implemented IEP. Student failed to meet her burden.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings