{"channel":"education","content":"There were 4 California OAH hearings this month.\r\n\r\nThe first case ( Case No. 2024100129) Parent v. San Diego USD. The topic was a very long, approximately 90-minute bus ride for a student with autism who had to be restrained on the ride. The verdict was that a maximum of one hour would be reasonable for the 12-mile drive in San Diego County. \r\n\r\nThe second case ( Case No. 2024100512) was Parent v. Fresno, USD. Student was represented by parent. The case was 17 pages and not very interesting. None of the parents' claims were found to have merit. \r\n\r\nThe third case ( Case No. 20214101050) seemed an exercise in bureaucracy. ( We are unable to comment publicly on counsel in the case.) The remaining claim was a request by the school for due process hearing to have the court authorize the IEP. The parents had elected not to consent to the IEP. After a three-day hearing, the court, in a 56-page ruling, determined the IEP was reasonable and allowed it to be implemented. \r\n\r\nThe fourth case ( Case No. 2024110856) concerned a student who was paralyzed and did not have control of their bowels. The question was what nursing care is required and whether this needed to be discussed and litigated in an IEP meeting. The verdict was that the provisions for the student's medical care were insufficient.","created_at":"2025-06-03T00:24:24.001282","id":570,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":null,"processed_content":"

There were 4 California OAH hearings this month.\r

\n

The first case \u2699\ufe0f Case No. 2024100129 Parent v. San Diego USD. The topic was a very long, approximately 90-minute bus ride for a student with autism who had to be restrained on the ride. The verdict was that a maximum of one hour would be reasonable for the 12-mile drive in San Diego County. \r

\n

The second case \u2699\ufe0f Case No. 2024100512 was Parent v. Fresno, USD. Student was represented by parent. The case was 17 pages and not very interesting. None of the parents' claims were found to have merit. \r

\n

The third case \u2699\ufe0f Case No. 20214101050 seemed an exercise in bureaucracy. \ud83d\udd25 We are unable to comment publicly on counsel in the case. The remaining claim was a request by the school for due process hearing to have the court authorize the IEP. The parents had elected not to consent to the IEP. After a three-day hearing, the court, in a 56-page ruling, determined the IEP was reasonable and allowed it to be implemented. \r

\n

The fourth case \u2699\ufe0f Case No. 2024110856 concerned a student who was paralyzed and did not have control of their bowels. The question was what nursing care is required and whether this needed to be discussed and litigated in an IEP meeting. The verdict was that the provisions for the student's medical care were insufficient.

","quotes":[],"subject":"CA OAH Hearing log"}