Districts Prevail When Parents Block Assessment and IEP Process for Autistic Child

What Happened

Student is a young child diagnosed with autism who received early intervention services through a Regional Center (IRC) from age two. As Student approached his third birthday — the point at which IRC services end and school district responsibility begins — the family contacted Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) just 30 days before that cutoff. DSUSD attempted to set up assessments and an IEP meeting, but the parents did not attend the first scheduled meeting, delayed signing the assessment consent form, and then stopped responding to the district entirely after March 2005. The family had already enrolled Student in a private, in-home ABA program called the LIFE Program, based on the Lovaas method, and ultimately moved to Riverside, where Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) took over responsibility.

After moving, the parents contacted RUSD, which conducted assessments and held an IEP meeting in July 2005. However, Mother attended the meeting as a "sponge" — declining to share information, withholding progress notes from the private ABA program, and never disclosing that she had privately hired an independent psychologist (Dr. Lenington) to evaluate Student. The parents also never attended a follow-up IEP meeting despite multiple requests from RUSD. The family then filed for due process seeking reimbursement for the LIFE Program, reimbursement for Dr. Lenington's evaluation as an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE), and compensatory education.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled against the family on every issue and found that both districts had acted reasonably under difficult circumstances largely created by the parents themselves.

On DSUSD: The district was contacted too late to complete a full assessment before Student's third birthday, but it still tried. The March 2005 meeting was found to be a preliminary transition meeting — not a formal IEP — because no assessment had been completed and no final placement had been offered. The temporary offer of a classroom spot at Monroe School was presented as an interim measure to avoid a gap in services, not a final placement decision. The ALJ found that the parents had never made Student available for assessment, and without that, no IEP obligation could be triggered.

On RUSD: The ALJ acknowledged several procedural shortcomings — the July 2005 IEP was incomplete, a general education teacher was absent, and goals were not measurable — but found that none of these rose to the level of a FAPE denial. The IEP was explicitly unfinished and a second meeting was planned. The district was not found to have predetermined the placement; it actually tabled the IEP specifically to investigate the parents' preferred ABA program. The parents' failure to provide information, share Dr. Lenington's report, or return to the IEP table made it impossible for RUSD to ever complete its offer.

On the IEE claim: Dr. Lenington's evaluation did not qualify as an IEE at public expense because the parents had booked the appointment before RUSD even conducted its assessment — meaning it could not be a "second opinion" on a district evaluation that didn't yet exist. The parents also never told the district about Dr. Lenington or shared her report.

On reimbursement for the LIFE Program: The ALJ found it "patently unfair" to order reimbursement when the parents enrolled Student in the LIFE Program unilaterally before RUSD had a chance to make any offer, then blocked the district from completing that offer.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief against Desert Sands Unified School District were denied.
2. Student's requests for relief against Riverside Unified School District were denied.
3. No reimbursement was awarded for the LIFE Program or Dr. Lenington's evaluation.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. You must make your child available for assessment. Districts cannot be held responsible for failing to create an IEP if parents block or delay the assessment process. The legal obligation to offer a FAPE depends on the district having access to the student. Withholding your child from testing removes the district's obligation — and your own legal leverage.

2. Hiring a private evaluator before the district assesses your child does not create an IEE right. To qualify for reimbursement as an IEE, your private evaluation must be a response to a district evaluation you disagree with. If you commission a private evaluation first, the district has no obligation to pay for it — even if the private evaluation is more thorough.

3. Participating in IEP meetings means actually engaging, not just listening. The ALJ noted that Mother attended the meeting as a "sponge" and declined to share information or raise concerns. Courts and ALJs evaluate whether parents had a meaningful opportunity to participate — but parents also have a responsibility to use that opportunity. Silence is not a protected strategy.

4. Enrolling your child in a private program before the district makes an offer carries financial risk. Reimbursement for private placements generally requires showing the district denied FAPE and that you gave the district a fair chance to make an offer. If you pull your child before that process completes, you may lose your right to reimbursement entirely.

5. Document everything and share relevant information with the district. The ALJ criticized the parents for withholding Dr. Lenington's report and the LIFE Program's progress notes. Withholding information that the district needs to build an appropriate IEP can backfire — the ALJ used it as evidence that the district's inability to complete the IEP was the parents' fault, not the district's.