Parent Ordered to Provide Consent So Mental Health Agency Can Coordinate Services

What Happened

Student was an 18-year-old with emotional disturbance who received special education through Fullerton Joint Union High School District (District) and mental health services through Merced County Mental Health (MCMH). His IEP required residential placement and attendance at a non-public school (NPS). After turning 18, Student aged out of his group home and was living with his mother while a new residential placement was sought. MCMH had offered a temporary service called Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) — a Medi-Cal funded, one-to-one behavior support — to help Student transition to a new facility. TBS began in November 2005 and ended in December 2005 when Student met his goals.

Student's mother filed for due process, arguing that MCMH denied Student a FAPE when it terminated the one-to-one aide. MCMH, in turn, filed its own due process request, arguing that Student's mother was preventing it from doing its job by refusing to sign consent forms and records releases. Most of the original issues were settled or withdrawn before the hearing concluded, leaving only these two issues for the ALJ to decide. Both were decided in favor of MCMH.

What the ALJ Found

On the one-to-one aide (TBS): The ALJ found that MCMH did not deny Student a FAPE when it ended TBS in December 2005. TBS was not an educational service and was never listed in Student's IEP. It was a Medi-Cal funded behavior support service with a maximum 60-day duration, offered specifically to help Student transition to a new residential placement. MCMH fulfilled its promise — TBS was provided, Student responded well, and he met the goals the TBS provider had established. The ALJ found that no other one-to-one service from MCMH was ever discussed or agreed to at any IEP meeting. Because Student had met his TBS goals, ending the service did not violate his right to a FAPE.

On consent and records access: The ALJ found that MCMH had an independent legal duty to monitor Student's placement, progress, and services — and that it could not do this job properly without the parent's cooperation. MCMH had been requesting consent and records releases since February 2005 and had been blocked at every turn. The parent had even instructed the school to deny MCMH access to Student unless she personally approved the contact. The ALJ found that while MCMH had told the parent it would not stop services if she refused to consent, her refusal was still impeding MCMH's ability to coordinate care effectively. The parent was ordered to provide the required consent within ten days.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's request for relief was denied in full.
2. Within ten days of the decision, Student's mother was ordered to provide consent for treatment and releases of information to MCMH so that MCMH could properly evaluate, visit, treat, and coordinate services between Student's residential placement, the NPS, the District, and MCMH.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Not every one-to-one aide is an IEP service — and temporary services can end when goals are met. TBS is a Medi-Cal behavior service, not a special education service. If it is not written into the IEP, the district or mental health agency may be able to end it without triggering a FAPE violation. Parents should ask at every IEP meeting exactly which services are guaranteed in the IEP versus which ones are supplemental and time-limited.

2. Mental health agencies have independent duties that go beyond the IEP. When a county mental health agency is involved in your child's education, it has its own legal obligations to monitor placement and coordinate services — separate from the IEP process. Blocking the agency's access to information can actually work against your child's interests and, as this case shows, can result in a legal order requiring you to cooperate.

3. Withholding consent can have legal consequences. This case is a reminder that while parents have strong rights under IDEA, unreasonably withholding consent from a mental health agency that is trying to help can result in a due process ruling against the parent. If you have concerns about what information is being shared or how it will be used, raise those concerns at an IEP meeting or in writing — but work toward a solution rather than a blanket refusal.

4. Understand what you are settling before withdrawing issues at a hearing. Several of the original issues in this case were settled or withdrawn during the hearing itself, sometimes after significant testimony had already been presented. Before withdrawing any issue, make sure you fully understand what rights you are giving up — and get any agreements in writing as part of the settlement.