California OAH special education order · August 24, 2026
Order Regarding Evidence on Remaining Issues to Be Proven at Hearing
OAH Case No. 2026010062 · ALJ Christine Arden
OAH limited the rest of the hearing to evidence on claims from December 26, 2023 onward, after ruling that Student failed to prove an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
Summary
Ross Valley and Marin County moved to dismiss Student's claims that fell outside the two-year statute of limitations. ALJ Linda Dowd denied that motion and instead set a first phase of the hearing so Student could try to prove one of the two statutory exceptions. Student called seven witnesses over four days. The hearing ALJ then ruled on the record that Student had not presented admissible evidence establishing an exception, and this order limits the remaining hearing to evidence on the issues dating from December 26, 2023 forward.
Why it matters
Families who want to reach back past the two-year limit must bring admissible evidence proving a statutory exception. Without that proof, older claims are cut off and the hearing narrows to the most recent two years.
People named in the order
- Linda Dowd, Administrative Law Judge (prehearing conference)
- Christine Arden, Administrative Law Judge (hearing)
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.
ROSS VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MARIN COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026010062
ORDER REGARDING EVIDENCE ON REMAINING ISSUES TO
BE PROVEN AT HEARING
AUGUST 24, 2026
On August 4, 2026, Ross Valley School District, called Ross Valley, and Marin County Office of Education, called Marin County, filed with the Office of Administrative, called OAH, a motion to dismiss Student’s claims falling outside the two-year statute of limitations. Student opposed the motion arguing he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if he established either of the two statutory exceptions to the statute of limitations. Administrative Law Judge, called an ALJ, Linda Dowd, denied that motion, and instead ordered as follows in the Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Denying Motion to Limit Issues, dated August 7, 2026:
“… the first portion of the hearing will be to determine if Student can present evidence of claims occurring prior to December 26, 2023. Student anticipates needing four to five witnesses and one and a half to two days to present the evidence. After Student presents his evidence, the ALJ will take a recess and make an oral ruling if Student may proceed with any issues prior to December 26, 2023.”
The due process hearing began on August 18, 2026, before the undersigned ALJ.
During the first four days of the hearing Student examined seven witnesses in an effort to prove facts establishing either of the two exceptions to the statute of limitations.
Thereafter, the undersigned ALJ ruled on the record on August 24, 2026, that Student had failed to present admissible evidence during this initial phase of the hearing that established an exception to the two-year statute of limitations, which will be fully addressed in the final Decision. The undersigned ALJ further ruled on the record on August 24, 2026, that during the next phase of the hearing, only evidence relevant to the remaining issues shall be presented.
For clarity of the record, the remaining issues for hearing, set forth below, have not been renumbered, but are listed with the same numbers and letters as set forth in the Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Denying Motion to Limit Issues, dated August 7, 2026, as such issues were modified pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and the Order of the ALJ on the first day of hearing before any evidence was presented. For the balance of the hearing the parties shall only present evidence relevant to the remaining issues to be proven. A free appropriate public education is called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.
The remaining issues to be proven at hearing are as follows:
1. Did Ross Valley and Marin County deny Student a FAPE from December 26,
2023, through December 2024, by failing to assess:
a. feeding and swallowing,
b. nutrition,
c. nursing and health-related needs,
d. augmentative and alternative communication,
e. adaptive functioning,
f. transportation-related needs,
g. sensory regulation,
h. behavioral functioning,
i. elopement risk, and j. communication?
2. Did Ross Valley and Marin County deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer
specialized instruction, related services, accommodations, supplementary aids and services, and supports reasonably calculated to enable Student to make appropriate progress in light of his individual circumstances in the:
c. May 2024 annual IEP?
3. Did Ross Valley and Marin County deny Student a FAPE by failing to develop
appropriate health supports, specifically feeding protocols, nursing supports, and health-related accommodations in the:
c. May 2024 annual IEP?
4. Did Ross Valley and Marin County deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer
appropriate behavioral, adaptive, communication, supervision, and safety supports necessary to ensure Student's safety and meaningful educational participation in the:
c. May 2024 annual IEP?
5. Did Ross Valley and Marin County deny Student a FAPE by denying Parent
meaningful participation in the IEP process at the May 2024 IEP team meeting by:
a. failing to accurately document Parent's concerns,
b. failing to provide legally required prior written notices,
c. failing to maintain accurate or complete educational records,
d. failing to timely respond to Parent's requests,
e. failing to restrict communication, and
f. otherwise interfering with Parent's procedural rights guaranteed under the
IDEA?
6. Did Ross Valley and Marin County deny Student a FAPE by failing to implement
consistent transportation-related supports and accommodations during the:
b. 2023-2024 school year, from December 26, 2023, and
c. 2024-2025 school year through December 2024?
7. Did Ross Valley and Marin County deny Student a FAPE from December 26,
2023, by failing to:
a. maintain complete and accurate educational records,
b. timely disclose educational information required by law,
c. accurately document educational decision-making, and
d. provide records necessary to ensure meaningful parental participation?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Christine Arden Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings