Parent on Behalf of Student v. East Side Union High School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER DISMISSING DUE PROCESS HEARING FOR LACK OF STANDING

FEBRUARY 4, 2026

On October 28, 2025, Father on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming East Side Union High School District. On February 3, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Linda Dowd commenced the due process hearing. Father appeared on behalf of Student. Kristal Tidwell appeared on behalf of East Side Union.

Prior to commencing the hearing, on January 30, 2026, East Side Union filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because Father no longer held Student’s educational rights. On February 2, 2026, Father filed a request for continuance to respond in writing to the motion. Father’s request to respond in writing was denied as he had the opportunity to be heard orally on East Side Union’s motion.

The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.), called the IDEA, is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education,” and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) Due process hearing procedures extend to the parent or guardian. (Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).)

The IDEA conveys rights to parents and children, and grants parents independent, enforceable rights. (Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist. (2007) 550 U.S. 516, 529, 533 [127 S.Ct. 1994] (Winkelman); see also Latynski-Rossiter v. District of Columbia (D.C. 2013) 928 F.Supp.2d 57, 62 (holding that that parents have standing to pursue reimbursement claims under the IDEA, even after the student has reached the age of majority and IDEA rights have transferred to the student).) Because parents enjoy rights under the IDEA, they are entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf. (Winkleman, supra, 55 U.S. at p. 518.)

Parents have the right to present a complaint “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,” called FAPE. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) OAH has jurisdiction to hear due process claims arising under the IDEA. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.)

The term “parent” is defined in 34 Code of Federal Regulations part 300.30(a) (2006) and Education Code section 56028, subdivision (a) to include biological parents, among others. When there is more than one biological parent, they are both presumed to be a “parent” unless the biological parent does not have legal authority to make educational decisions for the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.30(b)(1); Ed. Code, § 56028, subd. (b)(1).)

When a judicial decree or order identifies a specific person or persons as having authority to make educational decisions on behalf of a student, that person is determined to be the parent for purposes of the IDEA. (34 C.F.R. § 300.30(b)(2); Ed. Code, § 56028, subd. (b)(2).) When the parents of a student are divorced, the parental rights established by the IDEA apply to both parents, unless a court order or state law specifies otherwise. (Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Grants for Children with Disabilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 46568 (August 14, 2006); see also Letter to Biondi (October 7, 1997) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Letter to Best (January 8, 1998) OSEP, and Letter to Serwecki, (February 28, 2005) OSEP.)

In California, joint legal custody means that both parents share the right and the responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of a child. (Fam. Code, § 3003.) Sole legal custody means that one parent shall have the right and the responsibility to make the decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of a child. (Fam. Code, § 3006.)

When Father filed the complaint, Parents had joint legal custody. On January 23, 2026, both parents appeared for the prehearing conference in this matter. During the prehearing conference, Mother stated she did not agree with the complaint and was not involved as a party. On January 27, 2026, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, awarded sole legal custody to Mother. East Side Union included a declaration from Mother in its motion to dismiss along with the Superior Court Findings and Order After Hearing. Mother authenticated the Superior Court Order conferring sole legal custody to Mother and stated she was not in agreement with the complaint and did not want the due process hearing to go forward. East Side Union argues Father no longer has the legal right, also called standing, to move forward with the due process hearing.

Father argued the Superior Court Order was procedurally flawed, only temporary, and should not be relied on to dismiss the complaint. Mother was awarded sole legal custody pending mediation between Parents. However, the Superior Court did not set a mediation date, make any indication what the custody order would be after mediation, or set an expiration date for Mother’s sole legal custody. Additionally, OAH does not have the authority review any alleged procedural flaws in a Superior Court Order. Father’s argument that this matter should be continued until the custody issue is settled is not persuasive. When the Superior Court awarded Mother sole legal custody, she became the only parent who could make educational decisions for Student. Mother does not want the due process hearing to go forward. Therefore, OAH has no choice but to dismiss the complaint.

Father also argues that he had standing when he filed the complaint therefore his standing continues through the pendency of the hearing. Father argues that because he had standing when he alleged the violations occurred, he continues to have standing to resolve the issues. Father’s argument is similar to a parent filing a complaint on behalf of a Student who turns 18 before the due process hearing begins. In that case, education rights automatically transfer to the student, but parents retain the right to seek reimbursement for past failures. Here, the issues involve Student’s current individualized education program and assessments that have not yet taken place. The issues are not limited to solely reimbursement for educational expenses Father paid on behalf of Student. Father is no longer allowed to make educational decisions for Student, therefore, he cannot move forward with a due process hearing to challenge Student’s individualized education program or assessments.

ORDER

1. Student’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

2. If Father regains educational rights, he may refile the complaint on Student’s behalf, within the two year statute of limitations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Linda Dowd

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings