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. § 300.508

Due process complaint

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

(a) General. (1) The public agency must have procedures that require either party, or the attorney representing a party, to provide to the other party a due process complaint (which must remain confidential).

(2) The party filing a due process complaint must forward a copy of the due process complaint to the SEA.

(b) Content of complaint. The due process complaint required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include—

(1) The name of the child;

(2) The address of the residence of the child;

(3) The name of the school the child is attending;

(4) 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;

(5) A description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change, including facts relating to the problem; and

(6) A proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time.

(c) Notice required before a hearing on a due process complaint. A party may not have a hearing on a due process complaint until the party, or the attorney representing the party, files a due process complaint that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Sufficiency of complaint. (1) The due process complaint required by this section must be deemed sufficient unless the party receiving the due process complaint notifies the hearing officer and the other party in writing, within 15 days of receipt of the due process complaint, that the receiving party believes the due process complaint does not meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.

(2) Within five days of receipt of notification under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the hearing officer must make a determination on the face of the due process complaint of whether the due process complaint meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, and must immediately notify the parties in writing of that determination.

(3) A party may amend its due process complaint only if—

(i) The other party consents in writing to the amendment and is given the opportunity to resolve the due process complaint through a meeting held pursuant to § 300.510; or

(ii) The hearing officer grants permission, except that the hearing officer may only grant permission to amend at any time not later than five days before the due process hearing begins.

(4) If a party files an amended due process complaint, the timelines for the resolution meeting in § 300.510(a) and the time period to resolve in § 300.510(b) begin again with the filing of the amended due process complaint.

(e) LEA response to a due process complaint. (1) If the LEA has not sent a prior written notice under § 300.503 to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the parent's due process complaint, the LEA must, within 10 days of receiving the due process complaint, send to the parent a response that includes—

(i) An explanation of why the agency proposed or refused to take the action raised in the due process complaint;

(ii) A description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected;

(iii) A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as the basis for the proposed or refused action; and

(iv) A description of the other factors that are relevant to the agency's proposed or refused action.

(2) A response by an LEA under paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall not be construed to preclude the LEA from asserting that the parent's due process complaint was insufficient, where appropriate.

(f) Other party response to a due process complaint. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the party receiving a due process complaint must, within 10 days of receiving the due process complaint, send to the other party a response that specifically addresses the issues raised in the due process complaint.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(7), 1415(c)(2))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Caroline T. v. Hudson Sch. Dist., 915 F.2d 752 (1st Cir. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Caroline T. v. Hudson Sch. Dist., 915 F.2d 752 (1st Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “§ 1415 (d)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(4); N.H.Code of Admin.”
Cavanagh v. Grasmick, 75 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Maryland 1999). · cites it 5× “” See 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (1999); see also 20 U.”
Thomas Ex Rel. A.T. v. Dist. of Columbia, 407 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(1). Plaintiffs assertion is based solely on the alleged testimony of “Dr.”
I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946 (E.D. Tenn. 2017). “34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(2). The Department then holds a due-process hearing, Tenn.”
L.B. Ex Rel. K.B. v. Nebo Sch. Dist., 379 F.3d 966 (10th Cir. 2004). “34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(2). Hirase’s wife’s mere employment in the same school district as Genaux does not constitute a conflicting interest, particularly because there is no evidence that the women even knew each other.”
Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ'g Co., 898 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (b)(2) (1988). That regulation, however, applies to state administrative hearings under the EHA, not to judicial proceedings.”
Mr. & Mrs. v. Ex. Rel. Hv v. York Sch. Dist., 434 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D. Me. 2006). · cites it 2× “]”); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(1) (“A hearing may not be conducted .”
Weast v. Schaffer, 240 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Maryland 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 1415 (d)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(1); to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, 20 U.”
Brian S. v. Vance, 86 F. Supp. 2d 538 (D. Maryland 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 1415 (d)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(1); to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, 20 U.”
Dale Lucht & Terry Lucht v. Molalla River Sch. Dist., 225 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2000). “Unlike the impartial due process hearing that is expressly provided in § 1415 and is detailed in the regulations promulgated pursuant to it, see 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.508 -.513, the CRP is described only in the regulations, see 34 C.”
Siobhan Holland v. Dist. of Columbia & Franklin L. Smith, Superintendent, Dist. of Columbia Pub. Schs., 71 F.3d 417 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “For example, 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 elucidates the parents’ right to obtain an independent educational assessment.”
Andersen v. Dist. of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (a)(5) (a party to a hearing has a right to written findings of fact).”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(1999) — 1 case
H.H. Ex Rel. Hough v. Indiana Bd. of Special Educ. Appeals, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (N.D. Ind. 2007).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(a) — 1 case
Tracy v. Beaufort Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 335 F. Supp. 2d 675 (D.S.C. 2004).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(d) — 1 case
Alexandra R. v. Brookline Sch. Dist., 2009 DNH 136 (D.N.H. 2009).
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(e) — 1 case
G.M. Ex Rel. Marchese v. Dry Creek Jt. Elementary Sch. Dist., 595 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. 2014).
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.