Parents Who Refuse District Assessments May Lose Right to FAPE, Corona-Norco Case Shows

A 15-year-old student with dyslexia and a specific learning disability lost his right to special education services after his parents repeatedly refused to allow Corona-Norco Unified School District to assess him. The ALJ found that while the district committed some procedural violations, they were harmless errors. Because the parents blocked the district's assessment for nearly a year while secretly conducting their own private evaluation, the student was ruled ineligible for FAPE starting June 2, 2005.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old ninth-grader eligible for special education as a student with a specific learning disability (SLD) and dyslexia. During the 2004–2005 school year, he attended the Prentice School, a state-certified nonpublic school, through eighth grade. In December 2004, the district held an IEP meeting and proposed to continue his Prentice School placement through the end of the school year, with a follow-up meeting planned to discuss his transition to public high school. Student's parents never signed the IEP. In March 2005, they formally refused to consent to it and began privately arranging their own psycho-educational assessment through Dr. Robert Patterson. The district, meanwhile, tried repeatedly to schedule IEP meetings and submitted multiple assessment plans — in April, June, August, and November 2005 — all of which the parents refused to sign.

A June 2, 2005 IEP meeting was convened to discuss the transition to Norco High School, but the IEP team could not develop goals or identify present levels of performance because the parents again refused to consent to the district's assessment. The parents did not tell the district they had already retained a private evaluator. Dr. Patterson completed his report in July 2005, but the parents withheld it from the district until March 2006 — just before the due process hearing. The parents filed for due process in October 2005. The district filed its own hearing request in January 2006 seeking an order allowing it to assess Student. The cases were consolidated.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district did commit some procedural violations. No regular education teacher was present at the December 2004 IEP meeting, and the goals and objectives in that IEP were not measurable — they were written specifically for the Slingerland methodology used at Prentice School and could not be understood or implemented by any educator using a different approach. However, the ALJ ruled that both violations were harmless errors because Student received appropriate services at Prentice School throughout that period (a fact his parents conceded), and neither violation resulted in lost educational opportunity or prevented the parents from participating in the IEP process.

The ALJ rejected all other procedural claims. The district was not required to "discuss" the continuum of placement options at the meeting — only to have that continuum available. The IEP did not propose changing Student's placement at the December meeting, so no prior written notice was required. And the ALJ accepted the testimony of the Prentice School assistant principal — who had spoken with Student's teachers — over the private evaluator's testimony that the present levels of performance were inaccurate.

Most critically, the ALJ found that because the parents refused to allow the district to assess Student from April 2005 onward — while simultaneously conducting and concealing their own private assessment — the district was legally unable to complete the IEP process. Under federal case law, parents who want their child to receive FAPE must permit the district to conduct its own assessment. The ALJ ruled that Student lost his entitlement to FAPE beginning June 2, 2005, the date of the transition IEP meeting.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was authorized to assess Student pursuant to its November 2005 assessment plan (Student had finally consented during the hearing itself on March 22, 2006).
Within 15 business days of completing the assessment, the district was ordered to convene an IEP team meeting to discuss results and make a new offer of FAPE.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing a district assessment can cost your child their right to services. Under federal law, if you want your child to receive special education and related services, you must allow the district to conduct its own evaluation. Courts have held that there is no exception to this rule — even if you disagree with the district's approach or are conducting a private evaluation of your own.
If you obtain a private assessment, share it with the district promptly. In this case, the parents completed a private evaluation in July 2005 but withheld the report from the district until March 2006. The ALJ noted that the parents' main complaint — that the district failed to develop accurate present levels of performance and appropriate goals — was directly caused by their own refusal to share the very information the district needed. Withholding a private assessment can undermine your legal claims.
Procedural violations don't automatically mean the district denied FAPE. Even when a district makes real mistakes — like excluding a required team member or writing unmeasurable IEP goals — those errors only rise to the level of a FAPE denial if they caused your child to lose educational opportunity or prevented you from meaningfully participating in the IEP process. Always document how a procedural error actually harmed your child.
IEP goals must be written so that any qualified educator can measure and implement them. The ALJ found that goals tied exclusively to one school's proprietary methodology (Slingerland) were not legally measurable because no one outside that program could track the student's progress. If your child's goals can only be understood within one specific program, push for language that any qualified teacher could use and evaluate.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was authorized to assess Student pursuant to its November 2005 assessment plan (Student had finally consented during the hearing itself on March 22, 2006).
Within 15 business days of completing the assessment, the district was ordered to convene an IEP team meeting to discuss results and make a new offer of FAPE.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing a district assessment can cost your child their right to services. Under federal law, if you want your child to receive special education and related services, you must allow the district to conduct its own evaluation. Courts have held that there is no exception to this rule — even if you disagree with the district's approach or are conducting a private evaluation of your own.
If you obtain a private assessment, share it with the district promptly. In this case, the parents completed a private evaluation in July 2005 but withheld the report from the district until March 2006. The ALJ noted that the parents' main complaint — that the district failed to develop accurate present levels of performance and appropriate goals — was directly caused by their own refusal to share the very information the district needed. Withholding a private assessment can undermine your legal claims.
Procedural violations don't automatically mean the district denied FAPE. Even when a district makes real mistakes — like excluding a required team member or writing unmeasurable IEP goals — those errors only rise to the level of a FAPE denial if they caused your child to lose educational opportunity or prevented you from meaningfully participating in the IEP process. Always document how a procedural error actually harmed your child.
IEP goals must be written so that any qualified educator can measure and implement them. The ALJ found that goals tied exclusively to one school's proprietary methodology (Slingerland) were not legally measurable because no one outside that program could track the student's progress. If your child's goals can only be understood within one specific program, push for language that any qualified teacher could use and evaluate.