Upper Freehold Regional BOE v ST obo AT | Case 162-20 | 2020-01-09

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DECISION SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION OAL DKT. NO. EDS 162-20 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2020-31070 UPPER FREEHOLD REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, v. S.T. on behalf of A.T., Respondent. __________________________________ Stacey T. Cherry, Esq., for petitioner Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education(Fogarty & Hara, attorneys) S.T., on behalf of A.T., respondent, pro se Record Closed: January 7, 2020 Decided: January 9, 2020 BEFORE EDWARD J. DELANOY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ALAJ: On or about December 26, 2019 , petitioner, Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education (Board), filed a due process petition with the Department of Education, Office

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 162-20 2 of Special Education Programs (OSEP). On January 6, 2020, respondent filed a notice asserting that the petition is insufficient for the following reasons: The Board has never conducted a Behavioral Adaptive Assessment for A.T., using a VA BS tool or any other assessment to evaluate his social skills, communication, daily living skills, socialization, and motor skills. An IQ assessment for current cognition levels was also requested. A request for Behavioral Adaptive Evaluation was made. A follow-up auditory processing evaluation was requested. These exclusions by the Board occurred in conjunction with the effort led by the Board’s Director of Special Services, to remove A.T. from his out-of- district placement, without any reevaluations, as per an arbitrary and unilateral handwritten m odification made to A.T. ’s IEP, with out prior w ritten notice, with out parental consent and prior to the May 16, 2018, IEP meeting held at A.T. ’s then-OOD placement at the YALE School. The Office of Special Educat ion Programs transmitted this case to the Office of Administrative Law, where it was filed on January 7, 2020. In order to obtain a hearing on a due process petition or to engage in a resolution session based upon a due process petition, the petition must provide information including the following: 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 sc hool the child is attending; a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed o r refuse d 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) and (c). Upon review of the petition, the c hild’s name and address are provided. Petitioner has listed the name of the school the child is attending, and they have , in paragraphs five through nine of the petition, provided a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to such p roposed or refused initiation or change, or the facts relating to the problem. Petitioner has presented facts in support of this allegation, and therefore, ha s presented a basic platform sufficient to allow the respondent and a

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 162-20 3 reviewing tribunal , the abi lity to understand the dispute that petitioner is raising. Petitioner has also outlined, in its request for relie f, its proposed resolutio n to the problems raised herein. As such, I am satisfied that petitioner has sufficiently outlined the facts relating to a special education problem. Specifically, the petition does include the following: _X_ the name of the child. _X_ the address of the residence of the child. _X_ the name of the school the child is attending. _N/A_ the available contact information for a homeless child. _X_ a description of the nature of the problem relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change. _X_ the facts relating to the problem. _X_ a pro posed resolution to the problem to the extent known a nd available to the party at the time. Therefore, having reviewed the petition for due process, I CONCLUDE that it does include the infor mation required by statute and regulation for a special educati on matter, and that it is therefore, sufficient. There is a sufficient description of the nature of the problem relating to the proposed initiation or change. In addition, petitioner has sufficiently outlined the facts relating to a special education pro blem, and a proposed resolution of the issues. I therefore CONCLUDE that the petition is sufficient. I ORDER that the case be returned to OSEP and that the parties proceed with the resolution session or mediation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 162-20 4 This decision is final pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415( g)(2) and is appealable by filing a petition and bringing a civil action either in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey or in a district court of the United States. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(2). January 9, 2020 DATE EDWARD J. DELANOY, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR & ALAJ Date Received at Agency: _______________________________ Date Sent to Parties: mph