BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
K.O., Student by [redacted] Mother, Petitioner,
v
Shikellamy School District, Respondent.
File No. 02502/11-12AS
James Gerl, Hearing Officer
ORDER
This matter is before me upon respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Respondent requests dismissal because it contends that the student’s mother who filed the due process complaint lacks the legal capacity to bring a due process complaint.
The student’s mother filed a response to the motion. The student’s father filed a response to the mother’s response, joining the Respondent’s request for dismissal. Respondent also filed a response to the mother’s
File No. 02502/11-12AS
James Gerl, Hearing Officer
pleading. The student’s mother subsequently filed a reply. The school district filed its third brief, a response to the mother’s reply. The father filed an additional response. The mother filed a response to the school district’s third brief. All filings and all attached papers and supporting documents have been considered.
Procedural History
The student’s mother filed a handwritten note as a due process complaint with the school district dated November 7, 2011. The due process complaint was provided to respondent by the Office of Dispute Resolution on November 11, 2011. Respondent filed a challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint on November 23, 2011. IDEA §615(c)(2)(C). The sufficiency challenge was granted on November 28, 2011 and the student’s mother was given until January 6, 2012 to file an amended complaint. IDEA §§615(b)(7)(A); 615(c)(2)(D). Petitioner was advised that if an amended complaint was received by the deadline, the timelines for this case would begin again with the filing of the amended complaint. 34 C.F.R. §300.508(d)(4). The student’s mother filed an amended complaint on January 3, 2012 along with a stay put motion.