Anaheim District Ordered 750 Hours ABA Compensatory Ed for Failing to Assess Autistic Girl's Behavior

A parent filed for due process on behalf of her daughter, a young girl with autism, alleging Anaheim City School District failed to properly assess her behavioral needs, denied her a FAPE, and refused to provide an ABA home program. The ALJ found the District did fail to assess behavior and cognitive needs at key points and denied FAPE, but upheld the District's program methodology, assessments, and placement decisions overall. The District was ordered to provide 750 hours of compensatory ABA services and reimburse the family $1,661 in out-of-pocket costs.

What Happened

The student is a girl born in July 2001 who was identified with Autistic-Like Behaviors and entered Anaheim City School District at age three years and eight months. She had received no prior special education services before joining the District in early 2005. From the start, her mother raised repeated concerns about severe tantruming, screaming, and difficulty getting her daughter to school — behaviors that were significantly disrupting the family's daily life and the student's ability to access her education. The student cycled through several placements: a non-categorical special day class, a social skills program, an autism classroom, and eventually a first-grade setting at Roosevelt Elementary. Throughout this period, the mother attended every IEP meeting and repeatedly asked for help, including requesting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) in writing in September 2006 — a request the District effectively ignored.

The parent filed for due process in August 2007 alleging the District had failed to assess her daughter adequately, denied her a free appropriate public education (FAPE), refused to provide an ABA-based home program, and predetermined IEP placements without meaningful parental input. The District filed its own due process case in January 2008, and the matters were consolidated for a lengthy hearing spanning multiple days in early 2008. The central dispute was whether the District's eclectic autism program (which blended ABA, TEACCH, DTT, and other methods) was legally sufficient, or whether the student required an intensive, discrete trial training (DTT)-based ABA program including home services — as the family and their expert advocated.

What the ALJ Found

The outcome was mixed: the District prevailed on most issues, but the ALJ found several significant failures that denied the student a FAPE during specific periods:

Failed to assess behavior in fall 2005. The District had clear notice by September 2005 that the student's tantruming and screaming were impeding her education — her teacher had requested help and her mother reported severe home behaviors making it nearly impossible to get her to school. The District did not assess her behavioral needs at that time, which denied her a FAPE from August 2005 through April 2006.
Failed to assess cognitive needs in December 2005. When District staff believed the student was higher-functioning than originally thought and moved her to a more advanced social skills program, they did so without any updated assessment to establish her baselines. This denied FAPE from December 2005 through April 2006.
Failed to conduct an FBA after mother's written request in September 2006. The District discussed the request at a November 2006 IEP meeting but took no further action, essentially waiting to see if medication changes would resolve the behavior. This was a violation. The student's behavior continued to impede her education throughout the 2006–2007 school year.
Failed to provide behavioral goals. The District never developed appropriate behavioral goals despite behavior being a documented area of need throughout the relevant period.
Failed to offer an in-home program. Once it was clear that the student's home behaviors were preventing her from accessing school, the District should have offered an in-home component. It did not.
Inadequate speech/language and self-help goals (2005–2006). The IEP goals for expressive language and hand-washing/self-help seriously underestimated the student's needs during the first year of her program.
Outdated cognitive assessment tool used in 2007. The school psychologist used a 1931 version of the Merrill-Palmer test when a 2004 revised edition existed. While the ALJ found this was a procedural error, it was deemed harmless because the student did not lose educational benefit and the District corrected it by October 2007.

Where the District prevailed: The ALJ found the District did NOT predetermine placements, did NOT deny the mother meaningful participation in the IEP process (she attended all meetings and translation services were offered), did NOT need to include ABA-DTT specifically in the IEP, and was NOT required to provide a 35-hour-per-week DTT program. The October 2007 FAA, behavioral, and psychoeducational evaluations were all found appropriate, so the student was not entitled to a publicly funded IEE by Dr. Bailey. The District's eclectic SUCSESS autism program — incorporating ABA, TEACCH, PRT, and PECS — was found legally sufficient under IDEA's methodology-neutral standard.

What Was Ordered

750 hours of compensatory ABA services to be provided by Applied Behavior Consultants (a certified nonpublic agency), or another qualified NPA if ABC is unavailable, to be used for in-home and school-based behavioral services no later than August 31, 2010. The District was required to contract with the NPA within 30 days of the decision.
$1,661 reimbursement to the mother within 45 days of the decision, covering $1,325 she paid out of pocket for private in-home behavioral services and $336 for educational materials she purchased to help her daughter at home.
IEE request denied. The District's October 2007 assessments were found appropriate; the District was not required to fund an independent evaluation by Dr. Bailey.
All other requested relief denied, including the family's requests for 35 hours per week of ABA, 16 hours per month of ABA supervision, two hours per week of OT, and additional general education inclusion time beyond what was already being provided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document behavioral concerns in writing — and follow up. This mother verbally raised behavioral concerns for years and even submitted a written FBA request in September 2006. The District ignored it. The ALJ found this was a violation. If you request an assessment in writing and receive no response within 15 days, the district is already out of compliance. Keep copies of everything and send follow-up letters if you get no response.
Home behavior can trigger school obligations. A key finding here is that when your child's behavior at home is severe enough to prevent them from getting to school or accessing their education, the district may be required to assess that behavior and consider offering an in-home program. This is not just a "home problem" — it is an educational access issue.
Districts do not have to use ABA-DTT specifically, but they do have to address behavioral needs. The ALJ confirmed that under federal law, districts can choose their methodology — ABA-only is not legally required for autistic students. However, the District still lost on behavioral issues because it failed to assess behavior and write behavioral goals entirely. Methodology flexibility does not mean districts can ignore documented areas of need.
Program transitions require assessment. When the District moved this student to a higher-functioning classroom in December 2005 without updating her assessments, that violated FAPE. Any time your child is moved to a significantly different program, make sure updated assessments are conducted first — especially if prior evaluations were incomplete or informal.
Compensatory education is calculated on lost opportunity, not hour-for-hour replacement. The family asked for 1,540 hours of compensatory ABA. The ALJ awarded 750 hours. Compensatory education is an equitable remedy — the ALJ weighed the fact that the student was still making some progress and was in a staffed program, even if imperfect. Parents should be prepared to present evidence of exactly what skills or opportunities were lost due to district failures, as this shapes the remedy.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The outcome was mixed: the District prevailed on most issues, but the ALJ found several significant failures that denied the student a FAPE during specific periods:

Failed to assess behavior in fall 2005. The District had clear notice by September 2005 that the student's tantruming and screaming were impeding her education — her teacher had requested help and her mother reported severe home behaviors making it nearly impossible to get her to school. The District did not assess her behavioral needs at that time, which denied her a FAPE from August 2005 through April 2006.
Failed to assess cognitive needs in December 2005. When District staff believed the student was higher-functioning than originally thought and moved her to a more advanced social skills program, they did so without any updated assessment to establish her baselines. This denied FAPE from December 2005 through April 2006.
Failed to conduct an FBA after mother's written request in September 2006. The District discussed the request at a November 2006 IEP meeting but took no further action, essentially waiting to see if medication changes would resolve the behavior. This was a violation. The student's behavior continued to impede her education throughout the 2006–2007 school year.
Failed to provide behavioral goals. The District never developed appropriate behavioral goals despite behavior being a documented area of need throughout the relevant period.
Failed to offer an in-home program. Once it was clear that the student's home behaviors were preventing her from accessing school, the District should have offered an in-home component. It did not.
Inadequate speech/language and self-help goals (2005–2006). The IEP goals for expressive language and hand-washing/self-help seriously underestimated the student's needs during the first year of her program.
Outdated cognitive assessment tool used in 2007. The school psychologist used a 1931 version of the Merrill-Palmer test when a 2004 revised edition existed. While the ALJ found this was a procedural error, it was deemed harmless because the student did not lose educational benefit and the District corrected it by October 2007.

What Was Ordered

750 hours of compensatory ABA services to be provided by Applied Behavior Consultants (a certified nonpublic agency), or another qualified NPA if ABC is unavailable, to be used for in-home and school-based behavioral services no later than August 31, 2010. The District was required to contract with the NPA within 30 days of the decision.
$1,661 reimbursement to the mother within 45 days of the decision, covering $1,325 she paid out of pocket for private in-home behavioral services and $336 for educational materials she purchased to help her daughter at home.
IEE request denied. The District's October 2007 assessments were found appropriate; the District was not required to fund an independent evaluation by Dr. Bailey.
All other requested relief denied, including the family's requests for 35 hours per week of ABA, 16 hours per month of ABA supervision, two hours per week of OT, and additional general education inclusion time beyond what was already being provided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document behavioral concerns in writing — and follow up. This mother verbally raised behavioral concerns for years and even submitted a written FBA request in September 2006. The District ignored it. The ALJ found this was a violation. If you request an assessment in writing and receive no response within 15 days, the district is already out of compliance. Keep copies of everything and send follow-up letters if you get no response.
Home behavior can trigger school obligations. A key finding here is that when your child's behavior at home is severe enough to prevent them from getting to school or accessing their education, the district may be required to assess that behavior and consider offering an in-home program. This is not just a "home problem" — it is an educational access issue.
Districts do not have to use ABA-DTT specifically, but they do have to address behavioral needs. The ALJ confirmed that under federal law, districts can choose their methodology — ABA-only is not legally required for autistic students. However, the District still lost on behavioral issues because it failed to assess behavior and write behavioral goals entirely. Methodology flexibility does not mean districts can ignore documented areas of need.
Program transitions require assessment. When the District moved this student to a higher-functioning classroom in December 2005 without updating her assessments, that violated FAPE. Any time your child is moved to a significantly different program, make sure updated assessments are conducted first — especially if prior evaluations were incomplete or informal.
Compensatory education is calculated on lost opportunity, not hour-for-hour replacement. The family asked for 1,540 hours of compensatory ABA. The ALJ awarded 750 hours. Compensatory education is an equitable remedy — the ALJ weighed the fact that the student was still making some progress and was in a staffed program, even if imperfect. Parents should be prepared to present evidence of exactly what skills or opportunities were lost due to district failures, as this shapes the remedy.