Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONDismissedOAL Dkt. No. EDS 03092-25

B.T. obo C.T. v. Randolph Township BOE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. 03092-25

AGENCY DKT. NO. 2025-38628

SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGE

B.T. ON BEHALF OF C.T., Petitioner, v.

RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent.

B.T., petitioner, pro se

Robin S. Ballard, Esq., for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys)

Record Closed: February 18, 2025 Decided: February 19, 2025

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).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the documents submitted concerning this sufficiency challenge, I FIND the following as FACT:

On February 7, 2025, petitioners filed a request for due process hearing with the Department of Education, Office of Special Education (OSE), against respondent. Petitioners allege concerns with reading and math as well as concerns with attention and processing. Petitioners allege nothing more specific about these concerns. As a result, on February 11, 2025, respondent filed a sufficiency challenge with 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), asserting that this due process complaint does not meet the sufficiency requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A).

On February 11, 2025, OSE 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 OAL, 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.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A), a due process complaint must provide 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, petitioners described the nature of the problem, but no facts related to the problem. Similarly, petitioners propose no resolution to the problem. As a result, I CONCLUDE that the notice contained in the due process complaint is insufficient under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A), and that this case be dismissed.

ORDER

Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the due process complaint in this case is INSUFFICIENT, and that this case is DISMISSED.

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 District Court for the State of New Jersey.

February 19, 2025

DATE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ

Acting Director and Chief ALJ

Date Received at Agency: February 19, 2025

Date Sent to Parties: February 19, 2025 dr