LAUSD Prevails After Parent Refuses to Consent to IEP for Student with ADHD

A parent filed a due process complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District alleging the district failed to properly assess her 5th-grade son, denied him FAPE, and excluded her from meaningful IEP participation. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue, finding the assessments were appropriate, interpreters were adequate, and the IEP offered a genuine educational benefit — but Student received no services because Parent refused to sign the IEP.

What Happened

Student is a 10-year-old boy in 5th grade at a year-round elementary school in Los Angeles, eligible for special education under the category of "Other Health Impaired" (OHI) due to attention difficulties consistent with ADHD. In June 2005, Parent requested the district assess Student because of concerns about his low grades and lack of peer socialization. The district conducted a full assessment, including psychological, speech/language, academic, and motor abilities evaluations. An initial IEP meeting was held in August 2005 with a Spanish interpreter present, and the team offered Student a program that included Resource Specialist Program (RSP) services in math and written language, Adapted Physical Education (APE), a behavioral support plan, and a range of classroom accommodations. Parent did not sign the IEP, instead requesting the district also conduct an occupational therapy (OT) assessment. That assessment was completed in January 2006 and found no need for OT services. A second IEP meeting was held, and Parent again declined to sign.

Parent filed for due process in March 2006, raising several claims: that the district failed to assess Student in occupational therapy from the start; that the interpreters provided at the IEP meetings were not state-certified; that she was not given copies of assessment reports; that required participants (including an OT) were absent from the August 2005 IEP; that the district denied Student ESY services; that the RSP offer was insufficient; and that the IEP failed to explain how Student would access the general education curriculum. Parent sought compensatory education for the services Student never received.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on every issue. On the OT assessment question, the ALJ found there was no reason for the district to suspect a need for OT before Parent raised it — and notably, when an OT assessment was eventually conducted, it confirmed Student had no need for those services. The district had appropriately assessed motor abilities through APE evaluators who were present at the IEP meeting.

On the interpreter issue, the ALJ found there is no legal requirement — under federal or state law — that an interpreter be "state certified." The district provided a trained Spanish/English interpreter at both meetings, the assessment plan was given to Parent in Spanish, and several district staff also explained things to Parent in Spanish. Parent could not identify anything specific she failed to understand, and the ALJ found her credibility undermined by documents that contradicted her testimony.

On ESY, the ALJ found that because Student attended a year-round school, a traditional summer ESY program was not available. The district offered an inter-session program instead, but Parent declined it — and no educational expert testified that Student required such a program. On the FAPE and compensatory education claims, the ALJ concluded the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit: it included clear goals, RSP services, a behavior support plan, APE, and detailed accommodations for attention difficulties. The reason Student received no services at all was that Parent never consented to the IEP — a right she has, but one with consequences.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district was found to have prevailed on each and every issue.
No compensatory education, no additional assessments, and no changes to the IEP were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to sign an IEP means your child receives no services at all. Under California law, a district cannot provide special education services without parental consent. If you disagree with an IEP, you have options — you can sign it in part, request mediation, or file for due process — but withholding your signature entirely means your child goes without support while the dispute is resolved.
There is no legal requirement for a "state-certified" interpreter at IEP meetings. The law only requires that the district take steps to ensure you understand the proceedings. If you feel the interpretation is inadequate in a meeting, say so clearly and on the record — don't wait until due process to raise it, because the ALJ may find you waived the concern.
If you believe your child needs an OT assessment, request it in writing before the IEP meeting. In this case, the OT assessment was not conducted initially because Parent agreed to an APE assessment instead. Once she later requested OT, the district complied — but the OT found no need for services. Putting your specific concerns in writing early creates a clear record.
Year-round school students may not qualify for traditional ESY. If your child attends a year-round school, ask specifically about inter-session programs and what the eligibility criteria are. Declining an offered inter-session program without presenting expert evidence of need makes it very difficult to later argue the district denied your child ESY services.
You must present evidence, not just allegations. Parent raised many claims but the ALJ repeatedly noted no expert testimony or documentary evidence supported them. If you are filing for due process, bring records, outside evaluations, and knowledgeable witnesses — your testimony alone may not be enough.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district was found to have prevailed on each and every issue.
No compensatory education, no additional assessments, and no changes to the IEP were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to sign an IEP means your child receives no services at all. Under California law, a district cannot provide special education services without parental consent. If you disagree with an IEP, you have options — you can sign it in part, request mediation, or file for due process — but withholding your signature entirely means your child goes without support while the dispute is resolved.
There is no legal requirement for a "state-certified" interpreter at IEP meetings. The law only requires that the district take steps to ensure you understand the proceedings. If you feel the interpretation is inadequate in a meeting, say so clearly and on the record — don't wait until due process to raise it, because the ALJ may find you waived the concern.
If you believe your child needs an OT assessment, request it in writing before the IEP meeting. In this case, the OT assessment was not conducted initially because Parent agreed to an APE assessment instead. Once she later requested OT, the district complied — but the OT found no need for services. Putting your specific concerns in writing early creates a clear record.
Year-round school students may not qualify for traditional ESY. If your child attends a year-round school, ask specifically about inter-session programs and what the eligibility criteria are. Declining an offered inter-session program without presenting expert evidence of need makes it very difficult to later argue the district denied your child ESY services.
You must present evidence, not just allegations. Parent raised many claims but the ALJ repeatedly noted no expert testimony or documentary evidence supported them. If you are filing for due process, bring records, outside evaluations, and knowledgeable witnesses — your testimony alone may not be enough.