District Wins: No Child Find Violation for Private School Student Who Never Requested Assessment

A parent filed a due process complaint against Sequoia Union High School District, claiming the District failed its "child find" duty to identify her son — a private school student with a possible learning disability — and offer him special education services. The ALJ found in favor of the District, concluding that the District had a robust child find system in place and that no one ever gave the District enough information to trigger its obligations toward this specific student. All of the parent's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 21-year-old who had graduated from a private parochial high school (Junipero Serra) in 2004 with a 3.6 GPA and went on to college. He had received special education services through fifth grade in a different school district, but that district's IEP team determined he was no longer eligible in November 1996. For middle school, he attended a private school. When his mother began researching high school options around December 1999, she made some phone calls to Carlmont High School (the District's neighborhood school) asking generally about programs for students with "specialized needs." She ultimately chose to enroll Student at the private Serra high school, believing it met his needs. He never enrolled in the District and never received special education services from the District during high school.

In 2002 — after Student had already been at Serra for some time — he received a private psycho-educational evaluation to obtain testing accommodations for the PSAT and SAT. That evaluation showed discrepancies consistent with a possible specific learning disability. Neither Parent nor anyone at Serra ever shared those results with the District. Parent filed a due process complaint claiming the District violated its "child find" obligations — the legal duty to actively seek out and identify students with disabilities who live within district boundaries, even if they attend private schools — by failing to find Student and offer him special education services between February 2002 and July 2004.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the District. The decision identified two separate child find questions: (1) Did the District have a general system in place to identify private school students? And (2) Did the District have enough specific information about this particular student to trigger a duty to act?

On the first question, the evidence showed the District and the San Mateo County SELPA (Special Education Local Plan Area) had strong, ongoing child find activities. These included annual letters from the Superintendent to parents and private schools, yearly meetings for parents of middle school students receiving special education services, district-wide parent information nights, annual meetings with private school representatives, published notices in local newspapers (in English and Spanish), and information posted on the SELPA's website. The ALJ found these activities were comparable for private school and public school students alike, satisfying the legal requirement.

On the second question, the ALJ found the District simply never had enough information about Student to know it should act. Parent's phone calls to Carlmont were vague — she asked about programs generally but never clearly stated she wanted Student evaluated for special education eligibility. The District never received Student's old special education records. No one shared the 2002 private evaluation results with the District. And Parent herself acknowledged she had decided on the private school for reasons unrelated to whether public special education services would be available. Because a district's child find duty toward a specific child is only triggered when there is reason to suspect both a disability and a need for special education, and no such reason existed here, the District had no obligation to act.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Vague phone calls are not enough to trigger a district's legal duty. Child find obligations toward a specific student only activate when the district has real reason to suspect both a disability and a need for special education. Asking generally about "programs" or "specialized needs" may not be sufficient. If you want your child evaluated, say so clearly and in writing.
Private evaluation results don't help if you never share them with the district. Student had a psycho-educational evaluation in 2002 that suggested a possible learning disability — but because Parent and the private school never told the District about it, the District had no knowledge it could act on. Always provide copies of private evaluations to the district if you want them to consider your child for services.
Districts must have a child find system, but they are not mind readers. The law requires districts to actively look for students with disabilities, including those in private schools — but that system depends on some level of information reaching the district. The more specific and documented your communication with the district, the stronger any future legal claim will be.
If your child was previously found ineligible, that history matters. Student had been formally exited from special education in fifth grade. Without new, specific information suggesting renewed eligibility concerns, the District had no baseline reason to re-investigate. If your child's needs have changed since they were exited from special education, make that case explicitly and in writing to the district.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Vague phone calls are not enough to trigger a district's legal duty. Child find obligations toward a specific student only activate when the district has real reason to suspect both a disability and a need for special education. Asking generally about "programs" or "specialized needs" may not be sufficient. If you want your child evaluated, say so clearly and in writing.
Private evaluation results don't help if you never share them with the district. Student had a psycho-educational evaluation in 2002 that suggested a possible learning disability — but because Parent and the private school never told the District about it, the District had no knowledge it could act on. Always provide copies of private evaluations to the district if you want them to consider your child for services.
Districts must have a child find system, but they are not mind readers. The law requires districts to actively look for students with disabilities, including those in private schools — but that system depends on some level of information reaching the district. The more specific and documented your communication with the district, the stronger any future legal claim will be.
If your child was previously found ineligible, that history matters. Student had been formally exited from special education in fifth grade. Without new, specific information suggesting renewed eligibility concerns, the District had no baseline reason to re-investigate. If your child's needs have changed since they were exited from special education, make that case explicitly and in writing to the district.