(a) General. Any party to a hearing conducted pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 or §§ 300.530 through 300.534, or an appeal conducted pursuant to § 300.514, has the right to—
(1) Be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities, except that whether parties have the right to be represented by non-attorneys at due process hearings is determined under State law;
(2) Present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses;
(3) Prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed to that party at least five business days before the hearing;
(4) Obtain a written, or, at the option of the parents, electronic, verbatim record of the hearing; and
(5) Obtain written, or, at the option of the parents, electronic findings of fact and decisions.
(b) Additional disclosure of information. (1) At least five business days prior to a hearing conducted pursuant to § 300.511(a), each party must disclose to all other parties all evaluations completed by that date and recommendations based on the offering party's evaluations that the party intends to use at the hearing.
(2) A hearing officer may bar any party that fails to comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section from introducing the relevant evaluation or recommendation at the hearing without the consent of the other party.
(c) Parental rights at hearings. Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to—
(1) Have the child who is the subject of the hearing present;
(2) Open the hearing to the public; and
(3) Have the record of the hearing and the findings of fact and decisions described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section provided at no cost to parents.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(2), 1415(h))
[71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 73027, Dec. 1, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
102
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case:
Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223 (1989).
Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223 (1989).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (e) and 34 CFR § 300.512 (1988). 839 F. 2d, at 124-125.”
Roark Ex Rel. Roark v. Dist. of Columbia, 460 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (b)(3). The reviewing court “shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the…”
A.I. Ex Rel. Iapalucci v. Dist. of Columbia, 402 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (b)(3). The reviewing court “shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the…”
Thomas Ex Rel. A.T. v. Dist. of Columbia, 407 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (b)(3). The reviewing court “shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the…”
Brantley Ex Rel. Brantley v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 936 F. Supp. 649 (D. Minnesota 1996).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs claim this delay in receipt of a decision violated 34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (1996), which requires that, not later than 45 days after a request for an initial due process hearing, a final decision will be reached.”
Dist. of Columbia v. Ramirez, 377 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (b)(3). The reviewing court “shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of-a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the…”
Herbin Ex Rel. Herbin v. Dist. of Columbia, 362 F. Supp. 2d 254 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2)(A)); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (a) (2003). 5 The reviewing court must give due weight to the findings of the administrative officer, but less deference is appropriate than would normally be accorded an administrative decision.”
Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, 77 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2014).
· cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.512 (a)(3), (b)(1). This rule is not, however, absolute.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(a) — 1 case
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(a)(1) — 2 cases
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.