M.S. and K.S. obo K.S. v. Sussex-Wantage Regional BOE | Case 02115-26 | 2026-02-09

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGE OAL DKT. NO. EDS 02115-26 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2026-40337 M.S. AND K.S. ON BEHALF OF K.S., Petitioners, v. SUSSEX-WANTAGE REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent. _________________________________ M.S. and K.S., petitioners, pro se Frances L. Febres, Esq., for respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri, Jacobs, LLC, attorneys) Record Closed: February 9, 2026 Decided: February 9, 2026 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).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 02115-26 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the documents submitted concerning this sufficiency challenge, I FIND the following as FACT: On January 27, 2026, petitioners, M.S. and K.S. on behalf of K.S., filed a request for due process hearing with the Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE), against respondent, Sussex-Wantage Regional Board of Education . In their request for due process, petitioners assert that respondent denied K.S. a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) because the Sussex- Wantage Regional School District placed their son on home instruction pending an out - of-district placement. Petitioners conclude that this case can be resolved by convening a facilitated IEP team meeting. In response, on February 4, 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 this case must be dismissed because petitioners filed their r equest for due process hearing against the wrong party. Respondent specifies that it placed K.S. at the Rolling Hills Primary School in the Vernon Township School District through a sending-receiving agreement with the Vernon Township Board of Education but that it was the Vernon Township School District and not the Sussex -Wantage Regional School District that removed K.S. from his placement at Rolling Hills Primary School and placed him on home instruction . In addition, respondent asserts that this case must be dismissed because petitioners filed their request for due process hearing for relief that cannot be obtained through such a proceeding, namely a facilitated IEP team meeting . As a result, respondent concludes that the request for due process hearing is insufficient and that this case must be dismissed. On February 4, 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, where it was filed on February 5, 2026.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 02115-26 3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A), a due process complaint must include 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; (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 asserts that this case is insufficient and must be dismissed because petitioners filed a due process complaint against the wrong party and for relief that cannot be obtained through a due process hearing. These arguments, however, do not address the sufficiency of the complaint. They address the merit s of the case. Meanwhile, the due process complaint 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. Parenthetically, an administrative law judge can order a facilitated IEP team meeting as a remedy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 02115-26 4 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. February 9, 2026 DATE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ Director and Chief ALJ Date Received at Agency: February 9, 2026 Date Sent to Parties: February 9, 2026 dr