A.M. obo K.S. v. Piscataway Township BOE | Case 21700-25 | 2025-12-29
New Jersey special education due-process decision
- Case number
- 21700-25
- Date
- 12/29/2025
- Parties / district (official listing)
- A.M. obo K.S. v. Piscataway Township BOE
Open saved decision PDF · Official source
This page reproduces text extracted from the public decision. The saved PDF controls formatting and wording. No attorney-reviewed summary has been added.
Decision text
Page 1
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
FINAL DECISION
SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGE
OAL DKT. NO. EDS 21700-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 2026-40165
A.M. ON BEHALF OF K.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
PISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF EDUCATION ,
Respondent.
_________________________________
A.M., petitioner, pro se
David B. Rubin, Esq., for respondent
Record Closed: December 29, 2025 Decided: December 29, 2025
BEFORE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, CALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This decision addresses a sufficiency challenge under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(A),
34 C.F.R. § 300.508(d) (2019), and N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(f).
Page 2
OAL DKT. NO. EDS 21700-25
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the documents submitted concerning this sufficiency challenge, I FIND
the following as FACT:
On December 18, 2025, petitioner, A.M. on behalf of K.S., filed a request for due
process hearing with the Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE),
against respondent, Piscataway Township Board of Education . In her request for due
process hearing, pe titioner alleges that her son has been bullied and must be removed
from Piscataway High School and placed at a neighboring high school . On December
20, 2025 , respondent filed a sufficiency challenge with the OSE under 20 U.S.C. §
1415(c)(2)(A), 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(d) (2019), and N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(f). In its sufficiency
challenge, respondent argues that petitioners’ due process complaint does not allege a
special education dispute for which petitioners can request a due process hearing under
the law. On that same date, the OSE transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act
establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a determination under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the Special Education
Program, N.J.A.C. 1:6A-1.1 to -18.4.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A), a due process complaint must provide notice of
the following :
(I) the name of the child, the address of the residence of
the child (or available contact information in the case of a
homeless child), and the name of the school the child is
attending;
(II) in the case of a homeless child or youth (within the
meaning of section 725(2) of the McKinney -Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)), available contact
information for the child and the name of the school the child
is attending;
Page 3
OAL DKT. NO. EDS 21700-25
3
(III) a description of the nature of the problem of the child
relating to such proposed initiation or change, including facts
relating to such problem; and
(IV) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent
known and available to the party at the time.
[20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).]
In this case, respondent argues that petitioners’ due process complaint does not
allege a special education dispute for which petitioners can request a due process hearing
under the law . This argument, however, does not address the sufficiency of the
complaint. It addresses the merits of the case. Meanwhile, the due process complaint
provides notice of all the requirements delineated in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii) .
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the notice contained in the due process complaint is
sufficient under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A).
Respondent may renew its argument to dismiss this case before the judge
assigned to hear this case.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the sufficiency
challenge is DENIED, and that the timelines for conducting a due process hearing must
CONTINUE .
This decision is final under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(A) and is appealable under 20
U.S.C. § 1415(g)(2) by filing a petition and bringing a civil action in the Law Division of
the Superior Court of New Jersey or in the United States Dis trict Court for the State of
New Jersey.
December 29, 2025
DATE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ
Acting Director and Chief ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Sent to Parties:
jb
