MP obo RP v Ramapo Indian Hills Regional BOE | Case 10417-21 | 2021-12-30

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGE OAL DKT. NO. EDS 10417-21 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2022-33663 M.P. ON BEHALF OF R.P., Petitioner, v. RAMAPO-INDIAN HILL REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent. _________________________________ M.P., pro se Stacey T. Cherry, Esq., for respondent (Fogarty & Hara, attorneys) Record Closed: December 29, 2021 Decided: December 30, 2021 BEFORE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, 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 10417-21 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the documents submitted concerning this sufficiency challenge, I FIND the following as FACT: On December 13, 2021, petitioner filed a request for due process hearing with the Department of Education, Office of Special Education P olicy and Di spute Resolution (SPDR). On December 28, 2021, respondent filed a sufficiency challenge with SPDR 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), to determine whether this request for due process hearing meets the requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A). On November 3, 2021, SPDR 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 Office of Administrative Law, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing 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. In his request for due process hearing , petitioner writes that he is requesting the due process hearing because he has concerns about his son’s health in school and quality of his son’s education while isolated or quarantined at home. He also writes that a meeting was held on October 28, 2021, during which time it was agreed that his son would receive school assignments at home with a meeting with his teachers on Zoo m once a week , which has never occurred . As a result, petition seeks compensatory education and an out-of-district placement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III), a due process complaint may be filed “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” In this

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 10417-21 3 case, respondent argues that the due process complaint does not concern any of these. I disagree. To me, a fair reading of the due process compl aint indicates that petitioner complains of a denial of a free appropriate public edu cation. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the notice contained in the request for due process hearing is sufficient under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A) , and that the timelines for conducting a due process hearing should continue. ORDER Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the request for due process hearing is SUFFICIENT, and that the timelines for conducting a due process hearing shall 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 a district court of the United States. December 30, 2021 DATE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, ALJ Date Received at Agency: January 3, 2022________________ Date Sent to Parties: January 3, 2022 dr