District Prevails After Consultant Filed Hearings in Bad Faith to Force Payment

A parent filed a due process hearing against Corona-Norco Unified School District challenging the 2004-2005 IEP for a student with mild to moderate mental retardation and autism spectrum diagnosis. The ALJ found the district provided a FAPE and dismissed all five claims, including demands for speech-language therapy, a 1:1 aide, and general education placement. The case was significantly overshadowed by findings that the parent's educational consultant filed the hearing in bad faith — as a threat to force the district to pay $63,000 in unpaid consulting invoices.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old with mild to moderate mental retardation, seizure-related health impairments, and a recently identified autism spectrum diagnosis (Pervasive Developmental Disability, Not Otherwise Specified). Student attended Santiago High School within the Corona-Norco Unified School District and had received special education services for many years without significant conflict between the family and the district. The May 2004 IEP placed Student in special education classes for 83% of the school day and with general education peers during PE, lunch, and other non-academic activities — a program his mother signed and initially agreed to.

During the 2004-2005 school year, several concerns arose: a regular education teacher was absent from the May 2004 IEP meeting (though a signature was later fraudulently added to the document), Student reported being bullied in PE, Student was suspended for two days after making a threatening statement about a teacher, and no functional analysis assessment (FAA) was conducted. Parent, represented by an educational consultant named Peters, filed a due process hearing in June 2005 demanding speech-language therapy twice a week, a 1:1 aide, placement in a general education classroom, individualized parent training, and a functional analysis assessment. The ALJ ultimately dismissed all five claims and found the hearing had been filed primarily to harass the district into paying $63,000 in unpaid consulting invoices.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on every issue. On speech-language services, the district had appropriately ended formal therapy in 1999 when a qualified pathologist determined Student's needs could be met within the classroom. Parent did not request new speech-language services until May 2005, after the school year at issue had nearly ended. The expert witness presented by petitioner was found to have credibility problems due to her close personal and professional relationship with the consultant who filed the case.

On placement and LRE, the ALJ found Student's special education placement was appropriate. A prior attempt to increase Student's time in general education had caused anxiety and interfered with his progress. Parent had signed and approved the May 2004 IEP. While the district committed a serious procedural violation by failing to include a regular education teacher at the IEP meeting — and the ALJ called the fraudulent addition of that teacher's signature "inexcusable" and potentially fraud — this error did not deprive Student of educational opportunity or prevent Parent from participating in the IEP process. No 1:1 aide was required because Student was not in a general education classroom. On discipline, the two-day suspension was lawful, and an FAA was not triggered because Student was not suspended for more than 10 school days and the IEP team had not found behavioral approaches to be ineffective. On parent training, the district had offered a range of informational meetings and Parent had not requested individualized training.

Critically, the ALJ found that the consultant (Peters) had threatened the district in May 2005 — telling district administrators he would "file on those cases and the other ones we have" if unpaid invoices weren't paid — and then filed 12 due process requests on a single day in June 2005 when payment was refused. The ALJ found both the consultant and the attorney who signed the filings acted in subjective bad faith. Sanctions were not awarded only because the district itself had unclean hands due to the fraudulent IEP signature.

What Was Ordered

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
The student's requests for speech-language therapy, a 1:1 aide, general education placement, individualized parent training, and a functional analysis assessment were all denied.
No compensatory education or other relief was ordered.
Sanctions against the parent's representatives were considered but not imposed, solely because the district's own misconduct (the fraudulent teacher signature on the IEP) barred the remedy.

Why This Matters for Parents

A procedural violation only matters if it caused real harm. The district broke the rules by not having a general education teacher at the IEP meeting — and the ALJ called the forged signature potential fraud. But because Parent was able to fully participate and Student's placement wasn't harmed, there was no FAPE denial. Parents should document how any procedural error affected their ability to participate or their child's education, not just that an error occurred.
Speech-language services can be legitimately ended — but the door isn't closed forever. The district had properly closed out Student's speech therapy in 1999 with a documented clinical rationale. Because Parent hadn't formally requested reassessment until May 2005, the district had no obligation to restart services during the 2004-2005 year. If your child previously received speech services that were discontinued, formally request a new evaluation in writing as soon as you believe needs have changed — don't wait.
An FAA is not automatically required after any suspension. Under California law, an FAA is triggered when a student is removed for more than 10 school days or when the IEP team determines behavioral strategies are not working. A single two-day suspension, standing alone, does not create an obligation to conduct an FAA. Parents who believe their child's behavior reflects unmet needs should formally request an FAA through the IEP process rather than assuming the district must initiate one.
Who represents your child in due process matters enormously. This case is a cautionary tale: the family never met their attorney before the hearing, the expert witness was retained three days before testimony, and the hearing was found to have been filed to pressure the district financially rather than to serve the student's interests. Parents should independently verify the qualifications and motives of any consultant or advocate they hire, meet with them well in advance of any hearing, and ensure they understand what is being filed on their child's behalf.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
The student's requests for speech-language therapy, a 1:1 aide, general education placement, individualized parent training, and a functional analysis assessment were all denied.
No compensatory education or other relief was ordered.
Sanctions against the parent's representatives were considered but not imposed, solely because the district's own misconduct (the fraudulent teacher signature on the IEP) barred the remedy.

Why This Matters for Parents

A procedural violation only matters if it caused real harm. The district broke the rules by not having a general education teacher at the IEP meeting — and the ALJ called the forged signature potential fraud. But because Parent was able to fully participate and Student's placement wasn't harmed, there was no FAPE denial. Parents should document how any procedural error affected their ability to participate or their child's education, not just that an error occurred.
Speech-language services can be legitimately ended — but the door isn't closed forever. The district had properly closed out Student's speech therapy in 1999 with a documented clinical rationale. Because Parent hadn't formally requested reassessment until May 2005, the district had no obligation to restart services during the 2004-2005 year. If your child previously received speech services that were discontinued, formally request a new evaluation in writing as soon as you believe needs have changed — don't wait.
An FAA is not automatically required after any suspension. Under California law, an FAA is triggered when a student is removed for more than 10 school days or when the IEP team determines behavioral strategies are not working. A single two-day suspension, standing alone, does not create an obligation to conduct an FAA. Parents who believe their child's behavior reflects unmet needs should formally request an FAA through the IEP process rather than assuming the district must initiate one.
Who represents your child in due process matters enormously. This case is a cautionary tale: the family never met their attorney before the hearing, the expert witness was retained three days before testimony, and the hearing was found to have been filed to pressure the district financially rather than to serve the student's interests. Parents should independently verify the qualifications and motives of any consultant or advocate they hire, meet with them well in advance of any hearing, and ensure they understand what is being filed on their child's behalf.