34 C.F.R. § 303.421

Prior written notice and procedural safeguards notice

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

(a) General. Prior written notice must be provided to parents a reasonable time before the lead agency or an EIS provider proposes, or refuses, to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or placement of their infant or toddler, or the provision of early intervention services to the infant or toddler with a disability and that infant's or toddler's family.

(b) Content of notice. The notice must be in sufficient detail to inform parents about—

(1) The action that is being proposed or refused;

(2) The reasons for taking the action; and

(3) All procedural safeguards that are available under this subpart, including a description of mediation in § 303.431, how to file a State complaint in §§ 303.432 through 303.434 and a due process complaint in the provisions adopted under § 303.430(d), and any timelines under those procedures.

(c) Native language. (1) The notice must be—

(i) Written in language understandable to the general public; and

(ii) Provided in the native language, as defined in § 303.25, of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.

(2) If the native language or other mode of communication of the parent is not a written language, the public agency or designated EIS provider must take steps to ensure that—

(i) The notice is translated orally or by other means to the parent in the parent's native language or other mode of communication;

(ii) The parent understands the notice; and

(iii) There is written evidence that the requirements of this paragraph have been met.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1439(a)(6)-(7))
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2018–2018 · leading case: Nicola Ruhl v. State of Ohio Health Dep't (6th Cir. 2018).
Nicola Ruhl v. State of Ohio Health Dep't (6th Cir. 2018). “443 (f)(2), because IDEA Part C regulations include a requirement for adequate written notice of agency action, 34 C.F.R. § 303.421 , and the Ruhls allege that this was -16- Nos.”
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.