Capistrano USD: Parent Wins Partial Reimbursement After District Fails to Conduct FAA Following Biting Incidents

A parent challenged Capistrano Unified School District's special education program for a student with autism over multiple school years, alleging failures in assessment, placement, behavior services, and IEP development. The ALJ found the District mostly prevailed, but ruled it failed to conduct a required Functional Analysis Assessment after serious biting incidents in spring 2006 and failed to increase behavioral intervention services accordingly. The District was ordered to reimburse the family $79,641.20 for a private ABA home program and one independent speech evaluation.

What Happened

Student is a child with autism who attended Capistrano Unified School District's structured autism classes from kindergarten through second grade. The District's program used Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) techniques integrated throughout the school day, including individual Intensive Behavioral Intervention (IBI) services. Over several school years, Parent raised concerns about the adequacy of Student's assessments, IEP goals, behavior intervention planning, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and placement. Parent also sought reimbursement after unilaterally withdrawing Student from school in May 2006 and placing him in a private home-based ABA program.

The dispute came to a head in spring 2006 when Student bit school staff on three separate occasions — incidents severe enough to draw blood — after being redirected to put his shoes back on. This was a new behavioral antecedent and a new level of severity that had not been previously analyzed. The District did not conduct a new Functional Analysis Assessment (FAA) after these incidents and instead proposed moving Student to a more restrictive classroom without first exhausting behavioral strategies in his current placement. Student left school permanently on May 17, 2006, after the third biting incident. Parent retained a private ABA provider to run a home program and sought reimbursement for those costs, along with compensatory education for years of alleged FAPE denials.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on the vast majority of issues. The District's structured autism classes were found to be appropriate, well-staffed, and grounded in ABA methodology. Student's IEP goals across all years were found to be measurable and appropriately linked to his areas of need. Parent's participation in the IEP process was found to be meaningful — in fact, the IEP team repeatedly deferred to Parent's preferences, keeping Student in the structured autism class and maintaining speech and OT services even when the team had recommended reductions. The ALJ found Parent's expert witnesses largely unpersuasive because they had little or no direct knowledge of the District's classroom programs and based their opinions primarily on assessments conducted after Student had already left the District.

However, the ALJ found that the District did commit a FAPE violation in spring 2006. After Student bit staff hard enough to draw blood on March 27 and April 3, 2006 — incidents involving a new trigger (shoe redirection) and a new level of severity — the District was required to conduct a new FAA but failed to do so. The failure to analyze the new antecedents and behaviors meant the District could not properly update Student's Behavior Intervention Plan. A third biting incident followed on May 17, 2006. The ALJ also found that the District's June 2006 IEP did not offer FAPE because it proposed a more restrictive placement without first attempting enhanced behavioral interventions in the current setting. The District's subsequent IEP offers in March and July 2007, however, were found to be appropriate FAPE offers.

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to reimburse Parent $79,641.20 within 45 days of the decision, broken down as:
- $78,641.20 for ASC (Autism Spectrum Consultants) private ABA home program services from July 1, 2006 through March 12, 2007 (excluding charges for summer camp and "training").
- $1,000 for an independent speech and language evaluation obtained by Parent.
The student's remaining requests for compensatory education, additional reimbursement (including horseback riding, family self-defense lessons, and psychiatric medication management), and other relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

New behaviors with new triggers require a new Functional Analysis Assessment — even if an old behavior plan exists. When Student began biting staff at a new level of severity and in response to a situation that had never been analyzed before, the District was legally required to conduct a new FAA. The existing BIP was no longer sufficient. If your child's behaviors suddenly escalate in severity or appear in a new context, you can request a new FAA in writing.
A district cannot jump to a more restrictive placement without first trying behavioral supports in the current placement. The ALJ found the District's proposal to move Student to a more restrictive classroom — without first conducting an FAA or increasing IBI — violated the requirement to educate students in the least restrictive environment. Placement changes driven by behavior should follow a proper behavioral assessment, not replace one.
A private ABA home program can qualify for reimbursement, but only if the district was actually denying FAPE at the time. The ALJ awarded reimbursement only for the period when the District was in violation (spring 2006 through March 12, 2007). Once the District made an appropriate FAPE offer in March 2007, reimbursement stopped. Timing matters: document when the District's program breaks down and when you begin private services.
Parent satisfaction expressed at IEP meetings carries weight — contradictory testimony later may not be believed. The ALJ specifically noted that Parent's contemporaneous IEP meeting statements (such as saying Student was "perfectly placed") were more credible than later testimony to the contrary. Be thoughtful and accurate about what you say in IEP meetings, and document your concerns in writing at the time they arise.
Expert witnesses must have actual knowledge of the district's specific program to be persuasive. Parent's experts — including a pediatric psychologist and a speech pathologist — were repeatedly found unpersuasive because they had never observed Student in a District classroom and had no knowledge of how the District's IBI program worked. If you hire an expert to support your child's case, make sure they have reviewed the actual services your child received, not just assessed your child in isolation.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District was ordered to reimburse Parent $79,641.20 within 45 days of the decision, broken down as:
- $78,641.20 for ASC (Autism Spectrum Consultants) private ABA home program services from July 1, 2006 through March 12, 2007 (excluding charges for summer camp and "training").
- $1,000 for an independent speech and language evaluation obtained by Parent.
The student's remaining requests for compensatory education, additional reimbursement (including horseback riding, family self-defense lessons, and psychiatric medication management), and other relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

New behaviors with new triggers require a new Functional Analysis Assessment — even if an old behavior plan exists. When Student began biting staff at a new level of severity and in response to a situation that had never been analyzed before, the District was legally required to conduct a new FAA. The existing BIP was no longer sufficient. If your child's behaviors suddenly escalate in severity or appear in a new context, you can request a new FAA in writing.
A district cannot jump to a more restrictive placement without first trying behavioral supports in the current placement. The ALJ found the District's proposal to move Student to a more restrictive classroom — without first conducting an FAA or increasing IBI — violated the requirement to educate students in the least restrictive environment. Placement changes driven by behavior should follow a proper behavioral assessment, not replace one.
A private ABA home program can qualify for reimbursement, but only if the district was actually denying FAPE at the time. The ALJ awarded reimbursement only for the period when the District was in violation (spring 2006 through March 12, 2007). Once the District made an appropriate FAPE offer in March 2007, reimbursement stopped. Timing matters: document when the District's program breaks down and when you begin private services.
Parent satisfaction expressed at IEP meetings carries weight — contradictory testimony later may not be believed. The ALJ specifically noted that Parent's contemporaneous IEP meeting statements (such as saying Student was "perfectly placed") were more credible than later testimony to the contrary. Be thoughtful and accurate about what you say in IEP meetings, and document your concerns in writing at the time they arise.
Expert witnesses must have actual knowledge of the district's specific program to be persuasive. Parent's experts — including a pediatric psychologist and a speech pathologist — were repeatedly found unpersuasive because they had never observed Student in a District classroom and had no knowledge of how the District's IBI program worked. If you hire an expert to support your child's case, make sure they have reviewed the actual services your child received, not just assessed your child in isolation.