C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER III—OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES › Subpart E—Procedural Safeguards Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children

34 C.F.R. § 300.507

Filing a due process complaint

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. (1) A parent or a public agency may file a due process complaint on any of the matters described in § 300.503(a)(1) and (2) (relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of FAPE to the child).

(2) The due process complaint must allege a violation that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the due process complaint, or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for filing a due process complaint under this part, in the time allowed by that State law, except that the exceptions to the timeline described in § 300.511(f) apply to the timeline in this section.

(b) Information for parents. The public agency must inform the parent of any free or low-cost legal and other relevant services available in the area if—

(1) The parent requests the information; or

(2) The parent or the agency files a due process complaint under this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0600) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(6))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 126 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Seth B. Ex Rel. Donald B. v. Orleans Parish School Board
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seth B. Ex Rel. Donald B. v. Orleans Parish School Board (2016) ca5 · cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 (a)(1) (2015). If such criteria are inappropri- ately burdensome or irrelevant to parents, the proper approach is to strike down the criteria, holding that parents need not comply with them, rather than holding that the criteria do apply but parents need…”
Mary Courtney T. v. School District of Philadelphia (2009) ca3 · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.507 . In Pennsylvania-, the hearing is conducted by a Hearing Officer.”
Mr and Mrs Doe v. Cape Elizabeth School (2016) ca1 · cites it 2× “§ 1415 (f); see 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 (a)(1). The hearing officer's decision is then subject to judicial review.”
D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District (2010) pacommwct · cites it 2× “324 (2006) (providing for, at a minimum, annual review of a student's IEP); 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 (2006) (providing for a parental due process complaint to challenge an educational agency's refusal to change the identification, evaluation, and/or the educational placement of a…”
D.K. Ex Rel. Stephen K. v. Abington School District (2012) ca3 “§ 1415 (b)(6)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 (a)(2). We have held that the IDEA statute of limitations applies to claims brought after it was passed in 2004, even if the conduct occurred before its passage.”
Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified School District (2016) ca9 “A parent may then challenge this decision by requesting a due process hearing under 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 or filing a State complaint under 34 C.”
Somberg Ex Rel. Somberg v. Utica Cmty. Sch. (2018) ca6 “*171 § 1415(b)(7)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 . Once the ALJ rules, either aggrieved party may file suit in federal district court to challenge the decision.”
G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority (2015) ca3 “§ 1415 (b)(6)(B), and 1415(f)(3)(C), with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 (a)(2), and 300.511(e).”
J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified School District (2010) ca9 “34 C.F.R. § 300.507 (a)(2); Cal. Educ.Code § 5605(Z) (2008).”
Lisa M. v. Leander Independent Sch Dist (2019) ca5 “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 (a). An informal resolution meeting must follow.”
Anchorage School District v. M.P. (2012) ca9 “’s parents in order to develop a mutually acceptable IEP, or (2) unilaterally revise the IEP and then file an administrative complaint to obtain approval of the proposed IEP.”
Virginia Office of Protection & Advocacy v. Virginia, Department of Education (2003) vaed · cites it 2× “§ 1415 (b)(6), 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 (a)(1), and 8 VAC § 20-80-78(B), Plaintiffs then argue that because the due process examiner is statutorily empowered to assess a child’s placement, and the CRP in issue related to educational placement, the examiner therefore had appellate…”
Show all 126 citing cases →
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a) — 1 case
Heldman v. Sobol (1994) nysd
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(1) — 4 cases
Navarro Carrilo v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. (2019) ilsd
Gill v. Columbia 93 School District (2000) ca2
Smith v. District of Columbia (2018) dcd
Figueroa-Rivera v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (2025) prd
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(2) — 2 cases
T.P. ex rel. T.P. v. Bryan County School District (2014) gasd
Minnetonka Public Schools, Independent School District No. 276 v. M.L.K. (2021) mnd
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(b) — 1 case
Heldman v. Sobol (1994) nysd
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.