District Violated FAPE by Holding IEP Meeting Without Parents or Their Attorney

Newport-Mesa Unified School District filed for due process seeking approval of a May/June 2007 IEP that proposed moving a student with emotional disturbance from a nonpublic school to a public high school. The district held a critical IEP meeting on June 13, 2007 without the student's parents or their attorney present, despite the parents' clear request to attend with counsel. The ALJ ruled that this procedural violation significantly impeded the parents' right to participate in IEP decision-making, and therefore the proposed IEP did not constitute a free appropriate public education.

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. For several years, Student had attended a nonpublic school (Winston School) because of severe behavioral challenges. By 2007, the district believed Student had progressed enough to return to a public high school — specifically Corona del Mar High School — and proposed this change through the IEP process.

The trouble began at the annual IEP meeting held on May 29, 2007. The district's meeting room did not have a working speakerphone, which was essential because Winston School staff were participating by phone. After losing nearly an hour resolving the technology problem, there was not enough time to discuss Student's placement, services, or whether Student needed extended school year (ESY) services. The parents and their attorney were available to continue the meeting that same afternoon, but district staff had other commitments and refused. The district insisted on scheduling a follow-up meeting before June 15 — the last day of Winston's school year — even though Student's attorney was unavailable before that date. The parents made clear they were not comfortable attending an IEP meeting without their attorney, given their unfamiliarity with special education law. The district held the June 13 follow-up meeting anyway, without the parents or their attorney present. A representative sent by the parents attended only to tape-record the meeting. At that meeting — without the parents — the district determined that Student did not need ESY services and proposed a full placement change to public school for the 2007-2008 school year.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district committed a procedural violation of both federal (IDEA) and California special education law by holding the June 13, 2007 IEP meeting without the parents. The law requires IEP meetings to be scheduled at a mutually agreed-upon time, and districts must make genuine efforts to include parents before proceeding without them. The district did not demonstrate that those efforts were made here.

The ALJ rejected each of the district's justifications for pushing forward without the parents. The claim that the meeting had to happen before June 15 because of Winston's school year ending did not hold up — Winston's summer program began July 2, and IEP meetings had been held during summer in prior years. The argument that ESY needed to be addressed urgently also failed, because the district went beyond ESY and decided Student's entire placement and services for the following school year at that same meeting. The district also offered no evidence that its own staff would be unavailable after the school year ended, and never explored alternatives such as phone participation or waiving attendance of specific unavailable personnel.

The ALJ further held that the parents' and attorney's conduct was reasonable throughout. The parents had cooperated when the district changed the original meeting date, were prepared to stay longer on May 29 to finish the IEP, and were asking for a postponement of just a few weeks to accommodate their attorney's schedule. The district's argument that the parents "participated" by listening to the tape recording, sending written objections, and attending a later September IEP meeting did not cure the violation — especially since the district filed this due process case based on the May/June IEP before that September meeting even occurred.

What Was Ordered

The district's proposed IEP from the May 29 and June 13, 2007 IEP meetings did not offer Student a free appropriate public education.
The district was prohibited from changing Student's placement or services based on the offer made in those two IEP documents.
Student was identified as the prevailing party on the sole issue in the case.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to have your attorney or advocate present at IEP meetings. The law explicitly allows parents to bring a representative to IEP meetings. A district cannot force you to attend without support, and a meeting held without you — when you clearly wanted to attend — can be ruled invalid.
A district must make real efforts to find a mutually agreeable time before holding a meeting without you. Vague claims about staff vacations or the school year ending are not enough. If the district cannot show it genuinely tried to accommodate your schedule, proceeding without you is a procedural violation.
If an IEP meeting is held without you and major decisions are made — like a placement change — that alone can invalidate the entire IEP. Mailing you the IEP afterward, letting you listen to a recording, or inviting you to object in writing is not a substitute for being in the room when decisions are made.
If there's a legitimate time-sensitive issue like ESY, the district can address only that issue without you — it cannot use that urgency as a reason to also decide your child's entire school year placement behind closed doors. The ALJ specifically called out the district for going beyond ESY at the June 13 meeting.
Document your availability and your requests to reschedule. In this case, the parents' cooperation and the attorney's written requests to postpone were key evidence that the parents had acted reasonably. Keep copies of all communications with the district about scheduling.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The district's proposed IEP from the May 29 and June 13, 2007 IEP meetings did not offer Student a free appropriate public education.
The district was prohibited from changing Student's placement or services based on the offer made in those two IEP documents.
Student was identified as the prevailing party on the sole issue in the case.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to have your attorney or advocate present at IEP meetings. The law explicitly allows parents to bring a representative to IEP meetings. A district cannot force you to attend without support, and a meeting held without you — when you clearly wanted to attend — can be ruled invalid.
A district must make real efforts to find a mutually agreeable time before holding a meeting without you. Vague claims about staff vacations or the school year ending are not enough. If the district cannot show it genuinely tried to accommodate your schedule, proceeding without you is a procedural violation.
If an IEP meeting is held without you and major decisions are made — like a placement change — that alone can invalidate the entire IEP. Mailing you the IEP afterward, letting you listen to a recording, or inviting you to object in writing is not a substitute for being in the room when decisions are made.
If there's a legitimate time-sensitive issue like ESY, the district can address only that issue without you — it cannot use that urgency as a reason to also decide your child's entire school year placement behind closed doors. The ALJ specifically called out the district for going beyond ESY at the June 13 meeting.
Document your availability and your requests to reschedule. In this case, the parents' cooperation and the attorney's written requests to postpone were key evidence that the parents had acted reasonably. Keep copies of all communications with the district about scheduling.