Riverside District Prevails on FAPE Claims for Student with Autism, But Must Fund IEE

What Happened

Student is an 8-year-old boy with high-functioning autism (also described as Asperger's Syndrome) who attended Franklin Elementary School in the Riverside Unified School District. After years of disagreement between his parents and the district about his placement and support needs, the district's March 8, 2005 IEP amendment placed Student in a general education classroom with an instructional aide and promised "social skills training during his school day." Parent believed this meant daily, pull-out social skills instruction and a dedicated one-on-one aide monitoring bathroom use and social interactions. The district interpreted the IEP as providing curriculum-based social skills (through a general education program called "Mega Skills") and an aide who would help as needed rather than on a scheduled basis.

Parent filed for due process in May 2007, raising four main concerns: (1) the district failed to carry out the aide and social skills services in the IEP; (2) the district prevented parents from communicating with school staff and failed to hold the annual IEP meeting that was due in November 2005; (3) the district failed to assess Student in social skills, occupational therapy, and behavioral intervention; and (4) the district's own assessments were inadequate, entitling Student to independent educational evaluations (IEEs). The district filed its own due process case, arguing its assessments were appropriate and it did not need to fund the IEEs it had previously offered to provide.

What the ALJ Found

On the IEP implementation claims, the ALJ sided with the district. Multiple teachers, the instructional aide, and the school principal all testified that Student thrived in the general education environment — earning advanced or proficient grades, qualifying for the GATE (gifted) program, and successfully playing with peers at recess. Student himself testified that he did not rely on the aide for help. The ALJ found that any gaps in aide supervision or social skills instruction were minor and did not "significantly fall short" of what the IEP required, which is the legal standard for an IEP implementation violation.

On parental communication and the missed annual IEP, the ALJ found a procedural violation but no remedy was owed. The district did fail to hold the annual IEP meeting in November 2005 — a real procedural error. However, because Student continued to receive services under his existing IEP and performed exceptionally well during the period when no IEP was held, the ALJ found the violation caused no actual harm to Student's education. The ALJ also rejected the parent's claim that the district blocked communication with school staff, finding that a 2004 IEP note had been misread as prohibiting contact with teachers.

On the assessment claims, the ALJ sided with the district. Teachers, the school psychologist, and speech-language pathologist all found Student was functioning at or above grade level with no significant behavioral, motor, or social deficits in the school setting. The ALJ rejected the parents' private evaluator's report — noting it was based primarily on observations at home, did not include input from school staff, and contained test scores (like a first-percentile motor score) contradicted by Student's daily performance at school.

On the IEE issue, Student won. After Parent requested IEEs, the district sent a letter in May 2007 offering to fund psychoeducational and speech-language IEEs. But more than 60 days later, the district filed its own due process case trying to prove its assessments were fine — effectively trying to take back the offer. The ALJ ruled this was not allowed. Under federal regulations, once a district offers an IEE, it must follow through. The district cannot offer an IEE and then turn around and file for due process to avoid paying for it.

What Was Ordered

1. The District must reimburse Parent $1,500 for the independent psychoeducational evaluation already obtained from a private evaluator.
2. The District must fund a speech and language IEE for Student at public expense, to be completed within 60 days of the order.
3. All other requests for relief — including compensatory social skills instruction, occupational therapy assessments, and behavioral intervention services — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district cannot offer an IEE and then take it back. Once a district tells you in writing that it will fund an independent evaluation, federal law requires it to follow through. If the district wanted to challenge your evaluation request, it needed to file for due process promptly — not make an offer and reverse course 60 days later. Keep every written offer the district makes.

2. IEP implementation failures must be significant to trigger a legal remedy. Courts and ALJs apply a "material failure" standard — minor gaps between what the IEP promises and what was delivered do not automatically mean the district broke the law. If you believe the district is not following the IEP, document the specific services being missed and their frequency, so you can show the gap is substantial and ongoing.

3. Procedural violations (like a missed annual IEP) do not automatically result in compensation. The district made a real mistake by skipping the 2005 annual IEP meeting. But because Student was still receiving services and doing well, no remedy was ordered. To get relief for a procedural violation, parents generally need to show it actually harmed the child's education or meaningfully blocked their participation in decisions.

4. Private evaluations carry more weight when they include school-based observations. The ALJ gave little weight to the parents' private evaluator's report because it relied mostly on home observations and did not include input from teachers or school staff. If you hire a private evaluator, make sure they observe your child at school and speak with teachers — it makes the evaluation far more credible in a hearing.