Long Beach Student with Autism and Cerebral Palsy Wins Compensatory OT and AT Services

What Happened

Student is an eleven-year-old boy with ataxic cerebral palsy (CP) and autism-like behaviors who had been receiving special education services from Long Beach Unified School District since age three. His disabilities created significant challenges across multiple areas: fine and gross motor skills, communication (his speech was slurred, making verbal communication very difficult), academic functioning, and self-care tasks such as eating and fastening clothing. Because Student could not write by hand, he was entirely dependent on a computer with Pixwriter software to communicate and access the curriculum.

Parent filed a due process complaint in October 2006 challenging the District's provision of services across three school years (2004–2005, 2005–2006, and 2006–2007) and the District's proposed IEP for 2007–2008. Parent alleged failures in occupational therapy, assistive technology, speech-language services, behavioral support, one-to-one aide support, and placement. Parent also challenged the District's 2005 triennial assessment as inadequate and sought reimbursement for an independent psychological evaluation. The hearing was held over five days in June 2007, and the ALJ issued a split decision — the student prevailed on several specific claims but the District prevailed on the majority of issues.

What the District Did Wrong

Occupational Therapy — Handwriting Was Neglected for Years: Across every school year at issue (2004–2005, 2005–2006, 2006–2007, and the proposed 2007–2008 IEP), the District failed to include a handwriting goal in Student's IEP or provide sufficient OT to address this critical need. Student was required to write by hand virtually every day, yet no OT goals targeted handwriting and no work samples were produced to show progress. The ALJ found this was a denial of FAPE because Student's IEP was not designed to meet his unique needs in this area.

Assistive Technology — Broken Computers and Missing Software: During the 2004–2005 school year, the classroom computer Student depended on was unusable for approximately two weeks out of every month, and there was no working printer. Student, who could not write by hand, was left isolated and unable to access the curriculum for large portions of the year. In the 2006–2007 school year, Intellitools software required by the IEP did not arrive until February 2007 — five months after the IEP was signed, covering more than half the regular school year. Both failures were found to be material violations of Student's IEP amounting to a denial of FAPE.

One-to-One Aide — IEP Said One Thing, Classroom Did Another: Student's March 2005 IEP required a full-time, one-to-one aide assigned specifically to Student. Instead, the District assigned a general classroom aide who assisted multiple students. The teacher responsible for implementing this was not even told Student was supposed to have a dedicated aide. The ALJ found this failure occurred in both the 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 school years and constituted a denial of FAPE each year.

What Was Ordered

1. The District must provide compensatory education in the form of one hour of additional OT per week for one year, delivered by a non-public agency (NPA) outside of regular school hours, specifically targeting handwriting and fine motor skill development.
2. The District must also provide 50 minutes per month of OT consultation with Student's parents to coordinate services.
3. Beginning the first day of the 2007–2008 school year, the District must provide Student with full access to a computer equipped with both Pixwriter and Intellitools software for the entire school day, every day.
4. The District is NOT required to reimburse Parent for the cost of the independent psychological evaluation conducted by the private psychologist.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. IEP language about aides must be specific — and both sides must understand it the same way. In this case, the IEP said "classroom aide support daily for six hours" and the teacher thought it meant a general aide, while the parent understood it to mean a dedicated one-to-one aide. Ask at every IEP meeting: "Will this aide be assigned only to my child?" Get that in writing with clear language.

2. If your child depends on a device or software to communicate, the IEP must guarantee access — not just list the device. A computer listed in an IEP that is broken half the month, or software that arrives five months late, is not FAPE. Parents should push for specific language about availability (e.g., "full school day, every day") and follow up in writing if equipment is not working.

3. Occupational therapy must address all of a child's significant needs — not just some of them. The District provided OT goals for feeding and dressing but completely overlooked handwriting, even though Student had to write by hand every day. If your child has fine motor challenges, review the IEP to make sure OT goals cover every setting where those skills are needed.

4. Winning on some issues, not all, is common — focus your complaint on your strongest, most documented claims. This parent raised over a dozen issues; the student prevailed on about a third of them. The winning claims were the ones backed by concrete evidence — broken computers, missing software, a teacher who didn't know the aide assignment. Document everything throughout the year so you have evidence when it matters.