California OAH special education order · June 16, 2026
Order Clarifying Issues for Hearing
OAH Case No. 2026030986 · ALJ Jeanie Min
OAH restated seven hearing issues against Murrieta Valley after discussing them with the parties at the start of hearing. The issues cover records errors, child find, vision assessment, visual impairment eligibility and services, and extracurricular activities.
This case went to decision
Student v. Murrieta Valley Unified School District: Murrieta Valley Unified prevails on all seven claims involving a student with a visual impairment, including eligibility and assessment. (2026)
Summary
At the start of the June 16, 2026 due process hearing, ALJ Jeanie Min discussed the issues with Parent, who represented Student, and with Murrieta Valley's attorney. She then issued an order restating seven issues for hearing. The issues are: inaccurate educational records that used the wrong name and mixed Student's history with a sibling's; child find from the 2024-2025 school year; failure to assess Student's vision impairment; failure to find eligibility under visual impairment at the December 12, 2025 IEP; the lack of, or inadequate, visual impairment services in the December 2025 and February 2026 IEPs; and denial of extracurricular participation.
Why it matters
The ALJ will decide only the issues as clarified at hearing, so parents, especially those without a lawyer, should make sure each claim is stated precisely, with dates and specific IEPs, before testimony begins. The order also shows that errors in a student's records, such as confusing a student with a sibling, can be raised as a FAPE issue.
People named in the order
- Thanayi Lindsey, Administrative Law Judge (prehearing conference)
- Jeanie Min, Administrative Law Judge (hearing)
- Peter Sansom, Attorney for Murrieta Valley Unified School District
- Steven Gooch, Assistant Director of Special Education, Murrieta Valley
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026030986
ORDER CLARIFYING ISSUES FOR HEARING
JUNE 16, 2026
On May 22, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Thanayi Lindsey, 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. On May 29, 2026, OAH issued an Order Following Prehearing Conference.
On May 29, 2026, ALJ Jeanie Min granted Student’s request for a continuance of the due process hearing and continued the hearing to commence on June 16, 2026. On June 16, 2026, ALJ Min held the due process hearing by videoconference. Parent appeared on behalf of Student. Student also attended the hearing. Attorney Peter Sansom represented Murrieta Valley Unified School District. Assistant Director of Special Education Steven Gooch appeared on behalf of Murrieta Valley.
At the outset of the hearing on June 16, 2026, the parties had a discussion with the ALJ to clarify the issues for hearing. Based upon the discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order clarifying the issues for hearing.
A free appropriate public education is called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.
ISSUES
1. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to keep accurate
educational records, in that Murrieta Valley identified Student by the incorrect name and failed to distinguish Student’s disability and educational history from his brother’s?
2. Did Murrieta Valley fail to timely locate, identify, or evaluate Student under
its child find obligation, between the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year to the time he was initially assessed around October 2025?
3. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to appropriately assess
in all areas of known or suspected disability, specifically, Student’s vision impairment, as part of his initial assessment from around October 2025 to March 23, 2026?
4. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to find Student eligible
for special education under the category of visual impairment at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting?
5. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer any visual
impairment services in the December 12, 2025 IEP?
6. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate
visual impairment services in the February 26, 2026 IEP?
7. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by denying Student participation
in extracurricular activities between August 2024 and March 23, 2026?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jeanie Min Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings