District Failed Child Find But Won on FAPE: Student Gets IEE Despite Mixed Result

A kindergartner with cerebral palsy and chronic illness attended Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District, where the District failed to formally assess him for special education eligibility during SY 2005-2006 despite clear warning signs. The ALJ found the District violated its child find duty but ultimately prevailed because the student did not prove he was actually eligible for special education, and because the parent refused to sign assessment plans offered in SY 2006-2007. As a remedy for the child find violation, the District was ordered to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE).

What Happened

Student was born with cerebral palsy, static encephalopathy (a permanent brain condition), and experienced chronic toileting difficulties and severe susceptibility to respiratory illness. When Parent enrolled Student in kindergarten, she disclosed all of these conditions on the registration form and provided medical documentation at a meeting the day before school started. The District agreed at that August 2005 meeting to conduct occupational therapy (OT) and adapted physical education (APE) screenings, and even used special education assessment forms — but internally, the District was only thinking about a Section 504 plan, not a full special education evaluation. The District never explained this distinction to Parent, and never followed up on the assessments or convened a meeting to discuss findings. Student missed nearly half of his kindergarten school days due to illness, but the District did little to investigate why until a Student Study Team meeting in May 2006 — almost a full school year later.

In first grade (SY 2006-2007), Student did not return to school due to illness. After a police welfare check prompted contact, the District finally offered home-hospital instruction and proposed a formal special education assessment plan in October 2006. However, Parent refused to sign the assessment plan because she was frustrated about the District's failure to share the OT and APE results from the prior year, and because of an ongoing dispute about the terms of home-hospital instruction. The District made two more attempts to get Parent's consent to assess Student during SY 2006-2007, but Parent never signed. Student eventually enrolled in a charter school before the start of SY 2007-2008.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the District did violate its child find obligation during SY 2005-2006 and through October 16, 2006. The District knew Student had cerebral palsy, a permanent brain condition, chronic illness, and gross and fine motor delays — all documented before kindergarten even started. Despite this, the District confused Section 504 with the IDEA, never explained the difference to Parent, failed to follow up on the OT and APE evaluations it had ordered, and did not formally refer Student for special education assessment until more than a year after school started. The ALJ also found that the District's own home-hospital instruction policy stated that students with permanent disabilities should be referred for special education assessment — yet the District did not do so.

However, the District prevailed on the larger question: whether Student was actually denied a FAPE or was actually eligible for special education services. The evidence showed Student made adequate academic progress in kindergarten despite his absences, reached grade level by year's end, and was at grade level when tested during home-hospital instruction in first grade. The APE scores were below average but partly explained by lack of prior exposure to physical education activities. The OT screening did not identify significant deficits. There was no medical testimony that Student's health conditions prevented school attendance in a way that required special education. And critically, because Parent refused to sign the District's October 2006 assessment plan — not because the plan was inadequate, but due to the home-hospital dispute — the District was never able to complete a full evaluation to determine eligibility.

What Was Ordered

The District must fund and provide Student with an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in all areas of suspected disability listed in the District's April 2, 2007 assessment plan, at no cost to the family. This must be completed within 90 days of the decision.
Parent must make Student reasonably available for the IEE assessment.
Student's requests for compensatory tutoring hours and weekly OT and APE services were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Child find is triggered by red flags, not diagnoses alone. The District violated the law not because it had a formal diagnosis in hand, but because it had enough information — cerebral palsy, motor delays, chronic illness, outside therapy services — to suspect Student might need special education. The legal threshold for suspicion is described in this decision as "relatively low." If your child has significant medical or developmental conditions, the district may already be obligated to offer an assessment even before you formally request one.
Confusing Section 504 with special education is a serious procedural error. This District used IDEA forms, gave Parent IDEA rights notices, but was internally thinking about a 504 plan — and never explained the difference. If your district uses special education paperwork, holds meetings, and gives you IDEA rights notices, you are entitled to assume a special education assessment is underway. Always ask in writing: "Is this assessment for special education eligibility under the IDEA, or for a Section 504 plan?"
Refusing to sign an assessment plan can hurt your case. Parent's refusal to sign the District's October 2006 assessment plan — even though her frustration was understandable — directly limited the relief the ALJ could order. The ALJ found that Parent's refusal, not the District's conduct after October 2006, was responsible for the lack of a formal eligibility determination. If you have concerns about an assessment plan, raise them in writing and negotiate the plan's scope, but think carefully before refusing to sign entirely.
An IEE can be ordered as a remedy even when the student no longer attends the district. Even though Student had transferred to a charter school by the time of the hearing, the ALJ still ordered the District to fund an IEE because of the seriousness of its child find violations. If your district failed to assess your child and your child has since moved on, that violation may still entitle your family to an independent evaluation at district expense.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District must fund and provide Student with an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in all areas of suspected disability listed in the District's April 2, 2007 assessment plan, at no cost to the family. This must be completed within 90 days of the decision.
Parent must make Student reasonably available for the IEE assessment.
Student's requests for compensatory tutoring hours and weekly OT and APE services were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Child find is triggered by red flags, not diagnoses alone. The District violated the law not because it had a formal diagnosis in hand, but because it had enough information — cerebral palsy, motor delays, chronic illness, outside therapy services — to suspect Student might need special education. The legal threshold for suspicion is described in this decision as "relatively low." If your child has significant medical or developmental conditions, the district may already be obligated to offer an assessment even before you formally request one.
Confusing Section 504 with special education is a serious procedural error. This District used IDEA forms, gave Parent IDEA rights notices, but was internally thinking about a 504 plan — and never explained the difference. If your district uses special education paperwork, holds meetings, and gives you IDEA rights notices, you are entitled to assume a special education assessment is underway. Always ask in writing: "Is this assessment for special education eligibility under the IDEA, or for a Section 504 plan?"
Refusing to sign an assessment plan can hurt your case. Parent's refusal to sign the District's October 2006 assessment plan — even though her frustration was understandable — directly limited the relief the ALJ could order. The ALJ found that Parent's refusal, not the District's conduct after October 2006, was responsible for the lack of a formal eligibility determination. If you have concerns about an assessment plan, raise them in writing and negotiate the plan's scope, but think carefully before refusing to sign entirely.
An IEE can be ordered as a remedy even when the student no longer attends the district. Even though Student had transferred to a charter school by the time of the hearing, the ALJ still ordered the District to fund an IEE because of the seriousness of its child find violations. If your district failed to assess your child and your child has since moved on, that violation may still entitle your family to an independent evaluation at district expense.