Tustin USD Prevails: Parent's Boycott of IEP and Day Camp ABA Request Denied

What Happened

Student is a nine-year-old boy with autism who attended a general education second-grade class at Peters Canyon Elementary School within Tustin Unified School District. Despite his disability, Student was performing at or above grade level in all subjects, received "Proficient" to "Advanced" marks on his report card, and had many friends. He had been receiving Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy through the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD) since 2002. After disputes arose over the November 2005 IEP, the parties settled in March 2006 and agreed that a new IEP meeting would be held to address the details of Student's Extended School Year (ESY) services for summer 2006.

The district scheduled the IEP meeting for May 30, 2006, after multiple attempts to find a time agreeable to the family. Parent ultimately refused to attend because he wanted a specific district administrator (Dr. Stillings) to be the district's representative at the meeting — and when told a different coordinator would facilitate, Parent boycotted the meeting entirely. The district held the meeting without Parent, offered 20 hours per week of home-based ABA services for ESY, and declined to follow CARD's last-minute recommendation that ABA therapy be provided in a day camp setting. Parent filed for due process, seeking reimbursement for day camp costs and alleging the district violated his rights at every step.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on every issue. On the question of scheduling, the district had sent three separate meeting notices and documented numerous phone calls and emails attempting to reach a mutually agreeable time. The ALJ found that Parent was available on May 30, 2006, but refused to attend because he could not dictate who would represent the district — not because the time was inconvenient. That is not the same as the district failing to schedule the meeting at a mutually convenient time.

On the question of Parent's participation, the ALJ found that the district had no reason to believe a phone or video conference would have solved the problem, because Parent's objection was about who was in the room, not how he could join. The ALJ also found that a CARD representative is not legally required to attend an IEP meeting, and the CARD supervisor's absence due to a family emergency did not violate the law. The district did provide Parent with copies of the IEP — the ALJ found Parent's claim that copies were missing to be vague and not credible, while the principal's testimony that she personally handed Parent copies on two separate occasions was credible. The IEP document itself was found to constitute adequate prior written notice of both the proposed change in ABA service providers and the rejection of the day camp recommendation.

On the core substantive question — whether the district's ESY offer of home and community-based ABA was appropriate — the ALJ credited testimony from the district's autism specialist, who had six years of experience at the UCLA Lovaas Institute and was familiar with Student's program. She testified that all of Student's ABA goals and objectives could be implemented in a one-on-one home or community setting, and that day camp was not necessary. CARD's recommendation for day camp was undermined by the CARD supervisor's failure to identify any specific skill area where Student was at risk of regression. The ALJ denied reimbursement of $1,200 for day camp costs and $267 for mileage.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
2. The district prevailed on every issue presented.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. You cannot dictate who sits on the district's side of the table. Parents have the right to participate in IEP meetings and to know in advance who will attend — but you cannot make your attendance conditional on the district sending a specific administrator. If you refuse to attend for that reason, a court or ALJ may find that the district met its obligation and that your absence was your own choice.

2. A private ABA provider is not a required IEP team member. Parents often assume that their child's outside therapy provider must be included in IEP meetings. The law does not require this. If your child's ABA provider cannot attend, the district is not automatically in violation — especially when the student is placed in a public school (not a private placement).

3. The IEP document itself can serve as prior written notice. When a district proposes to change a service provider or rejects a placement recommendation, it does not always need to send a separate formal notice letter. If the IEP document describes the proposed action and the reasons for it, that may legally satisfy the prior written notice requirement.

4. To win an ESY placement argument, you need specific evidence of regression risk. Requesting a day camp or other specialized setting for ESY is not enough — you must show that your child is at risk of regressing in a specific skill area that cannot be addressed in a home or community setting. General concerns about social skills are insufficient if the evidence shows the child is thriving and no regression has been documented.

5. Procedural violations alone do not guarantee relief. Even if a district makes procedural errors, a parent must show that those errors caused an actual loss of educational opportunity or meaningfully interfered with the parent's ability to participate. In this case, where Parent voluntarily chose not to attend, the procedural claims did not succeed.