District and County Mental Health Denied FAPE by Refusing to Reassess Student After Psychiatric Hospitalization

What Happened

Student is a teenager eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. During his 7th and 8th grade years at a District middle school, he struggled with aggressive behavior toward peers, verbal conflicts, and significant difficulty completing and turning in schoolwork. The District worked with Riverside County Department of Mental Health (CMH) to provide counseling and developed behavior support plans (BSPs) to address his conduct. In April 2007, a crisis at home caused Student to threaten suicide. He was voluntarily placed in a psychiatric hospital, where a psychologist assessed him and concluded he had a delusional disorder and needed residential placement for educational reasons. Student was hospitalized from April 25 to May 12, 2007.

After Student's discharge, Parent requested an IEP meeting and a reassessment to determine whether Student needed a residential placement. At the May 15, 2007 IEP meeting, both the District and CMH acknowledged the situation but CMH refused to conduct a reassessment, concluding that Student's psychiatric needs were not educationally related. The District, relying on CMH's refusal, continued to offer the same home hospital instruction placement that had been in place before the crisis — without any updated evaluation of Student's changed needs. Parent ultimately placed Student at a residential facility in Texas, and later at a certified nonpublic school in California. Student's due process complaint covered the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the District and CMH failed to reassess Student after his psychiatric hospitalization, and that this failure denied him a FAPE. By the time of the May 15, 2007 IEP meeting, the IEP team knew that Student had threatened suicide, had been psychiatrically hospitalized, and had been assessed by a psychologist who found a delusional disorder and recommended residential placement. The District's own school psychologist acknowledged at the hearing that the District did not have sufficient information to determine whether Student needed a residential placement. Despite all of this, CMH refused to reassess and the District made no FAPE offer beyond continuing the pre-crisis home hospital placement.

The ALJ found that this failure to reassess was a procedural violation that caused a substantive denial of FAPE — because without a reassessment, neither the District nor CMH could know whether Student's educational needs had changed enough to require a different placement. The denial of FAPE continued into the 2007-2008 school year because no reassessment was completed and no new IEP was developed. The ALJ noted that for the period after Parent received but had not yet signed the District's proposed assessment plan, the District was not responsible for the delay.

The ALJ dismissed Parent's claims about the adequacy of BSPs in the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years, finding that the District responded appropriately by updating behavioral interventions as Student's needs changed and that Student made educational progress both years. The ALJ also rejected the predetermination claim, finding that although CMH may have had a fixed position on residential placement, the District itself came to the May 2007 IEP meeting with an open mind.

What Was Ordered

1. Student prevailed on Issues 3, 5, and 6 (failure to reassess after hospitalization, failure to reassess for the 2007-2008 school year, and failure to offer FAPE for 2007-2008).
2. The District and CMH prevailed on Issues 1, 2, and 4 (BSP adequacy in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, and predetermination).
3. Determination of the specific remedy — including any compensatory education or reimbursement — was bifurcated into a separate proceeding scheduled for February 28-29, 2008. No specific compensatory services or placement orders were issued in this decision.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A psychiatric hospitalization is a major red flag that triggers a duty to reassess. When a student is hospitalized for psychiatric reasons and a mental health professional recommends a higher level of care, the school district and county mental health cannot simply continue the prior IEP without conducting a new evaluation. The law requires reassessment whenever a student's educational needs may have changed.

2. County mental health cannot refuse a reassessment simply because it believes a parent's motives are non-educational. The ALJ found that CMH's refusal was improper because it focused on why the parent was requesting residential placement rather than on whether the student's actual needs had changed. The question must always be: what does this child need now?

3. If you request a reassessment at an IEP meeting, document it clearly — and follow up in writing if the district or county mental health refuses. The ALJ found that the request made at the May 15, 2007 IEP meeting was sufficient to trigger the duty to reassess. Parent's timely request was a key part of winning on these issues.

4. Sign proposed assessment plans promptly. The ALJ found that during the period after Parent received the district's October 2007 assessment plan but before she signed it, the district was not responsible for the failure to assess. Delays in signing assessment consent forms can limit the remedies you are entitled to receive.