EducationLawyers.com

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

Research New Jersey special education decisions