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. § 300.532

Appeal

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

(a) General. The parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision regarding placement under §§ 300.530 and 300.531, or the manifestation determination under § 300.530(e), or an LEA that believes that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others, may appeal the decision by requesting a hearing. The hearing is requested by filing a complaint pursuant to §§ 300.507 and 300.508(a) and (b).

(b) Authority of hearing officer. (1) A hearing officer under § 300.511 hears, and makes a determination regarding an appeal under paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) In making the determination under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the hearing officer may—

(i) Return the child with a disability to the placement from which the child was removed if the hearing officer determines that the removal was a violation of § 300.530 or that the child's behavior was a manifestation of the child's disability; or

(ii) Order a change of placement of the child with a disability to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days if the hearing officer determines that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others.

(3) The procedures under paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) and (2) of this section may be repeated, if the LEA believes that returning the child to the original placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others.

(c) Expedited due process hearing. (1) Whenever a hearing is requested under paragraph (a) of this section, the parents or the LEA involved in the dispute must have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing consistent with the requirements of §§ 300.507 and 300.508(a) through (c) and §§ 300.510 through 300.514, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) through (4) of this section.

(2) The SEA or LEA is responsible for arranging the expedited due process hearing, which must occur within 20 school days of the date the complaint requesting the hearing is filed. The hearing officer must make a determination within 10 school days after the hearing.

(3) Unless the parents and LEA agree in writing to waive the resolution meeting described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, or agree to use the mediation process described in § 300.506—

(i) A resolution meeting must occur within seven days of receiving notice of the due process complaint; and

(ii) The due process hearing may proceed unless the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties within 15 days of the receipt of the due process complaint.

(4) A State may establish different State-imposed procedural rules for expedited due process hearings conducted under this section than it has established for other due process hearings, but, except for the timelines as modified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the State must ensure that the requirements in §§ 300.510 through 300.514 are met.

(5) The decisions on expedited due process hearings are appealable consistent with § 300.514.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3) and (4)(B), 1415(f)(1)(A))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Doss v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doss v. State (2009) miss · cites it 4× “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 (e) (1986). The team was to assess the child "in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor…”
JG v. Douglas County School District (2008) ca9 · cites it 2× “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 (2)(h) (1999). Appellants argue that the District did not fulfill these requirements and that the District did not evaluate the twins within the meaning of IDEA.”
R.P. Ex Rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified School District (2011) ca9 “The case the parents cite to support their claim that the IEP team must include “at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability” relies on a regulation that was in effect only until 1999, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 (e), and thus predated…”
Fitzgerald v. Fairfax County School Board (2008) vaed · cites it 3× “In support of their argument, plaintiffs rely on 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 , which states that a hearing officer “may .”
Nb v. Hellgate Elementary School Dist. Ex Rel. Board of Directors (2008) ca9 “§ 1414(b)(3)(C) (1997); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 (g) (1999). As of September 2003, Hellgate’s IEP team members were on notice that C.”
Joseph Park, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kyung Hee Park Kyung Hee Park v. Anaheim Union High School District G (2006) ca9 “56320(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 ; Cal. Code Regs. tit.”
Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High School (2010) ca8 “Despite federal and state regulations requiring school districts to implement systems designed to identify students with learning disabilities, and instructing that students with limited English proficiency should not be excluded from testing and services for students with…”
Georgia State Conference of Branches of Naacp, Mary Alice Covin, Mary Laurant, Sylvia Dennis, and Naomi Tucker v. State (1985) ca11 “531 and State Exhibit 158, Georgia Department of Education Regulations and Procedures, Program for Exceptional Children IDDFd3-8, § 111(B)(4) (requiring full individual evaluation before placement) [hereinafter cited as “Georgia Regulation”]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.532 (e),…”
L.R. v. Manheim Township School District (2008) paed “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 (g) (amended 2006). 12 .”
Catrone v. Miles (2007) arizctapp “34 C.F.R. § 300.532 (b) (July 1, 2006), renumbered as 34 C.”
Fort Osage R-1 School District v. Sims Ex Rel. B.S. (2011) ca8 “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 (h) (2006) (current version at 34 C.”
Brennan v. Regional School District No. 1 Board of Education (2008) ctd “See 34 C.F.R, § 300.532 (2002); Conn. Gen.Stat.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(3)(d) — 1 case
Richard Kelby, Mabel Kelby, Parents of Richard Robert Kelby Richard Robert Kelby v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (1992) ca9
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.