A.P. and G.P obo Minor Child G.P. v. West Deptford Township BOE | Case 01512-26 | 2026-02-10

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGE OAL DKT. NO. EDS 01532-26 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2026-40299 M.K. AND Y.X. ON BEHALF OF G.K., Petitioners, v. GLEN ROCK BORO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent. ______________________________________ M.K. and Y.X., petitioners, pro se Robin S. Ballard , Esq., for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP , attorneys) Record Closed: February 2, 2026 Decided: February 3, 2026 BEFORE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, Director and Chief ALJ: 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).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 01532-26 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the documents submitted concerning this sufficiency challenge, I FIND the following as FACT: On January 15, 2026, petitioners, M.K. and Y.K. on behalf of G.K., filed a request for due process hearing with the Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE), against respondent, Glen Rock Boro Board of Education. In their request for due process hearing, petitioners assert that respondent denied their son a free, appropriate public education ( FAPE) because respondent excluded them from the individualized educational program (IEP) process. Petitioners conclude that this case can be resolved by including them in the IEP process. In response, on January 28, 2026, 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 asserts that petitioners filed a request for due process hearing that fails to identify a dispute related to special education as required by 20 U .S.C. § 1415 and N .J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7. Respondent writes that petitioners failed to identify an issue relating to “identification, evaluation, classification, education placement, the provision of [FAPE], or disciplinary action.” As such, respondent concludes that petitioners filed a request for due process hearing for which a due process hearing is unavailable. On that same date, January 28, 2026, the OSE transmitted the sufficiency challenge 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A), a due process complaint must include notice of the following:

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 01532-26 3 (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; (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 claims that petitioners filed a request for due process hearing for which a due process hearing is unavailable . This argument, however, does not address the sufficiency of the complaint. It addresses the merit s of the case. Meanwhile, the due process complaint does, in fact, allege an issue for which a due process hearing is available, namely the denial of FAPE. It also provides notice of all the requirements under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A). Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the notice contained in the due process complaint is sufficient under the law. 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 01532-26 4 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. February 3, 2026 DATE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ Director and Chief ALJ Date Received at Agency: February 3, 2026 Date Sent to Parties: February 3, 2026 dr