California OAH special education order · April 14, 2026
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2026020379 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied Student's stay put motion seeking a home placement because Student never identified or submitted a consented-to IEP showing that home placement was the last agreed-upon and implemented placement.
Summary
Student filed a 93-page stay put motion, followed by a reply, an errata, and Parent declarations with medical records and screenshots. Student appeared to argue that stay put included some form of home placement. Vacaville opposed and submitted the January 28, 2025, IEP with a counsel declaration stating it was the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. OAH denied the motion because Student did not submit a consented-to IEP supporting a home placement and did not show which services and placement were at issue.
Why it matters
A stay put motion must point to the specific IEP or amendment that was last agreed to and implemented. Medical records and lots of paperwork do not take the place of a signed IEP showing the placement the family wants kept in place. Long, unfocused filings that never name the controlling IEP are likely to fail.
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.
VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026020379
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
APRIL 14, 2026
On March 23, 2026, Student filed a motion for stay put. This motion was 93 pages long and included reference to another student. This motion included numerous medical records, emails, and what appears to be various pages of incomplete IEP documents.
Vacaville filed a response on March 25, 2026. Vacaville’s response included a copy of the January 28, 2025, IEP document and a declaration from counsel that this is the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP.
On March 25, 2026, Student filed three documents. Student filed a reply to Vacaville’s opposition. Student filed a Notice of Errata, correcting the error of the original motion that identified a different student. Student further filed a declaration from Parent that included screenshots and medical records.
Finally, on April 1, 2026, Student filed a supplementary declaration of Parent.
Student did not identify a specific IEP or amendment that constituted stay put.
Despite this it appears from the voluminous filings that he is arguing his stay put placement includes some version of home placement.
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.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s motions appear to contend he is entitled to a home placement as a function of stay put. Student failed to submit a consented to IEP document that supports his contention. Student failed to demonstrate which services and placement are at issue. Thus, Student’s motion for stay put as to a home placement is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings