District Wins Right to Reassess Dyslexic Student Over Parents' Objection

A 13-year-old student with dyslexia was unilaterally withdrawn from his Manteca Unified school by his parents, who then refused to allow the district to reassess him. The district filed for due process to override the parents' refusal. The ALJ ruled that conditions warranted reassessment and ordered the parents to make their son available for testing.

What Happened

A 13-year-old student with dyslexia had been receiving special education services through Manteca Unified's Resource Specialist Program (RSP) since 2004. Over time, his parents grew increasingly concerned that he was suffering from anxiety — which they attributed to harassment by other students and mistreatment by teachers — and that the district's program was not meeting his needs. After the student was sent home from school ill in January 2006, his parents withdrew him entirely and announced plans to enroll him in Valley Oaks School for Dyslexia, a more restrictive private placement. His parents simultaneously filed a due process complaint alleging the district had denied their son a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

In response, the district proposed a reassessment plan to evaluate the student's current academic performance, intellectual development, social-emotional status, and health — noting that significant changes in his situation made updated information necessary. When the parents refused to consent to the reassessment, the district filed its own due process request seeking an order allowing it to reassess him over the parents' objection. This case decided only that narrow question: whether the district could reassess the student without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. Key findings included:

Conditions clearly warranted reassessment. The student had been out of school for nearly three months with no confirmed instruction or services. The district had no way to know his current academic level, the status of his anxiety, or whether his emotional difficulties were tied specifically to Brock Elliot or would follow him to any school setting.
The parents' own actions triggered the need for reassessment. By withdrawing their son and planning a more restrictive private placement, the parents signaled that they believed his needs had changed significantly — yet they refused to allow the district to evaluate whether that was true or what the appropriate response would be.
The district cannot fulfill its FAPE obligation without current data. Federal and state law require the district to continue offering an appropriate program even after a unilateral withdrawal. The district cannot design or propose an appropriate placement without knowing the student's present levels of performance and emotional functioning.
Parents who want special education services must allow reassessment. The ALJ cited federal case law holding that there is no exception to this rule: a parent who wants their child to receive special education benefits cannot block the district from conducting necessary evaluations.
The reassessment plan itself was legally proper. The parties had already agreed (stipulated) that the district's January 20, 2006 reassessment plan met all legal requirements under the California Education Code.

What Was Ordered

The district is entitled to reassess the student in accordance with its January 20, 2006 reassessment plan, covering academic achievement, psychomotor development, intellectual development, social-emotional behavior, and health.
The district must notify the parents in writing of the date and location of the reassessment at least 15 calendar days in advance.
The parents must make their son reasonably available to be assessed.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing reassessment can backfire. If you want your child to receive special education services, courts and ALJs have consistently held that you must allow the district to evaluate your child when conditions genuinely warrant it. Blocking an assessment while simultaneously demanding a different placement is legally inconsistent.
Pulling your child from school does not stop the district's right to assess. A unilateral withdrawal actually increases the district's need for current data — the longer a child is out, the more outdated the existing records become, and the stronger the district's case for reassessment becomes.
Document your concerns in writing before withdrawing. If your child is suffering from anxiety or emotional harm at school, put your concerns in writing to the district immediately. This creates a record and may prompt the district to address the problem within the IEP process rather than forcing a confrontation over placement.
A separate FAPE case can still move forward. This decision only resolved the reassessment question. The parents' underlying due process complaint alleging denial of FAPE (OAH No. N2006010033) was scheduled separately and was not affected by this ruling. Winning or losing on reassessment does not determine the outcome of the main case.
Medical documentation matters — share it early. The family's physician wrote a letter supporting the student's removal from school, but the district didn't receive it until just before the hearing. Sharing medical or therapeutic documentation with the district promptly can strengthen your position and may lead to a negotiated solution rather than litigation.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. Key findings included:

Conditions clearly warranted reassessment. The student had been out of school for nearly three months with no confirmed instruction or services. The district had no way to know his current academic level, the status of his anxiety, or whether his emotional difficulties were tied specifically to Brock Elliot or would follow him to any school setting.
The parents' own actions triggered the need for reassessment. By withdrawing their son and planning a more restrictive private placement, the parents signaled that they believed his needs had changed significantly — yet they refused to allow the district to evaluate whether that was true or what the appropriate response would be.
The district cannot fulfill its FAPE obligation without current data. Federal and state law require the district to continue offering an appropriate program even after a unilateral withdrawal. The district cannot design or propose an appropriate placement without knowing the student's present levels of performance and emotional functioning.
Parents who want special education services must allow reassessment. The ALJ cited federal case law holding that there is no exception to this rule: a parent who wants their child to receive special education benefits cannot block the district from conducting necessary evaluations.
The reassessment plan itself was legally proper. The parties had already agreed (stipulated) that the district's January 20, 2006 reassessment plan met all legal requirements under the California Education Code.

What Was Ordered

The district is entitled to reassess the student in accordance with its January 20, 2006 reassessment plan, covering academic achievement, psychomotor development, intellectual development, social-emotional behavior, and health.
The district must notify the parents in writing of the date and location of the reassessment at least 15 calendar days in advance.
The parents must make their son reasonably available to be assessed.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing reassessment can backfire. If you want your child to receive special education services, courts and ALJs have consistently held that you must allow the district to evaluate your child when conditions genuinely warrant it. Blocking an assessment while simultaneously demanding a different placement is legally inconsistent.
Pulling your child from school does not stop the district's right to assess. A unilateral withdrawal actually increases the district's need for current data — the longer a child is out, the more outdated the existing records become, and the stronger the district's case for reassessment becomes.
Document your concerns in writing before withdrawing. If your child is suffering from anxiety or emotional harm at school, put your concerns in writing to the district immediately. This creates a record and may prompt the district to address the problem within the IEP process rather than forcing a confrontation over placement.
A separate FAPE case can still move forward. This decision only resolved the reassessment question. The parents' underlying due process complaint alleging denial of FAPE (OAH No. N2006010033) was scheduled separately and was not affected by this ruling. Winning or losing on reassessment does not determine the outcome of the main case.
Medical documentation matters — share it early. The family's physician wrote a letter supporting the student's removal from school, but the district didn't receive it until just before the hearing. Sharing medical or therapeutic documentation with the district promptly can strengthen your position and may lead to a negotiated solution rather than litigation.