L.D. and E.D. obo E.D. v Central Regional BOE | Case 12973-18 | 2018-09-07
New Jersey special education due-process decision
- Case number
- 12973-18
- Date
- 9/7/2018
- Parties / district (official listing)
- L.D. and E.D. obo E.D. v Central Regional 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 OF COMPLAINT
OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12973-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 2019 28718
L.D. AND E.D. ON BEHALF OF E.D.,
Petitioners,
v.
CENTRAL REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
______________________________________
Michael Inzelbuch, Esq. for petitioners
Alexandra Stulpin, Esq., for respondent (Comegno Law Group, P.C., attorneys)
Record Closed: September 5, 2018 Decided: September 7, 2018
BEFORE ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ:
Petitioners, L.D. and E.D. , on behalf of their child, E.D., filed a request for due
process under N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -2.7, on August 2 8, 2018. On September 5 , 2018 , the
Central Regional Board of Education (the Board) filed a notice asserting that the petition
is insufficient. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(f); 20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. §300.508(d) .
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) transmitted this case to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for a sufficiency ruling, where it was filed on September 6 ,
2018.
Page 2
OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12973-18
2
N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -2.7(f) provides that “a request for a due process hearing or
expedited due process hearing (for disciplinary issues) serves as notice to the
respondent of the issues in the due pr ocess complaint.” Via its request for a sufficiency
ruling, the Board urges that this request does not identify the issues in dispute with
sufficient specificity.
In order to obtain a hearing on a due process complaint , or to engage in a
resolution session, the petitioner s must provide the following information: the name of
the child; the address of the residence of the child, or, if homeless, available contact
information for the child; the name of the school the child is attending; a description of
the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or
change; the facts relating to the problem; and a proposed resolution to the problem , i.e.,
relief sought, to the extent known and available to the party at the time . 20 U.S.C.
§1415 (b)(7)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b), (c).
I FIND that the petition includes the information required by the statutes and
regulations governing special education due process petitions. And although the Board
contends otherwise, the petition explains the nature of the problem, and proposes a
resolution. The petition avers that an IEP presented to the parents on or about August
10, 2018, is at issue; that the parents have rejected that IEP; and believe that the IEP
omits several critical components, to include, a Behavioral Intervention P lan (BIP), and
programming to address executive functioning social skills, and time management
deficits. The petition also generally contends that the child study team disregarded the
input of a private expert; it names that expert and shares that she attended a July 2018
IEP Team meeting.
A sufficient due process petition is one that alerts the responding school district
to the claims in contention. This petition does so. The sufficiency challenge focuses on
the language at the end of the petition which summarizes the parental concerns with the
vague and general statement that they seek “a legal, proactive and thorough IEP for
[their] child.” But the challenge ignores the fact that earlier in the document th e parents
make it very plain why they think the IEP is deficient.
Page 3
OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12973-18
3
I CONCLUDE that the petitioners have filed a sufficient due process petition. I
therefore ORDER that the case be returned to the Office of Special Education Programs
and that the parties proceed with the requested mediation.
This decision is final pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(2) and is appealable by
filing a complaint and bringing a civil action either in the Law Division of the Superior
Court of New Jersey or in a district court of th e United States. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(2);
34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (2007).
September 7, 2018
DATE ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency September 7, 2018
Date Mailed to Parties:
sej
