Deaf Student with Emotional Disabilities Wins Placement at Out-of-State For-Profit Residential Center

A 17-year-old deaf student with emotional disturbance and serious behavioral needs was denied a FAPE after every appropriate non-profit residential program in the country rejected him. Although California law appeared to prohibit placing students at out-of-state for-profit facilities, the ALJ ruled that federal IDEA rights supersede that restriction when no other option exists, ordering the District and County Mental Health to fund placement at the National Deaf Academy in Florida as compensatory education.

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old boy who is deaf, has impaired vision, an orthopedic condition, and borderline cognitive ability. His only effective way to communicate is American Sign Language (ASL). He also has a long history of serious behavioral challenges, including self-injury and aggression, and was eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance with deafness as a secondary condition. Because of his unique combination of needs, Student required a therapeutic residential placement staffed by ASL-fluent professionals — a placement that proved nearly impossible to find.

After Student moved to Riverside in April 2007, the District attempted several placements. He was accepted at the California School for the Deaf, Riverside (CSDR) for a 60-day assessment period but was suspended and then expelled after an incident during his suspension. He was then placed at Oak Grove Institute with a signing interpreter, but all parties agreed this day program could not meet his mental health and communication needs. The District and Riverside County Department of Mental Health (CMH) conducted an exhaustive nationwide search — reaching out to programs in California, Florida, Wyoming, Ohio, and Illinois — and could not find a single non-profit residential program willing to accept Student. The one facility everyone agreed was appropriate, the National Deaf Academy (NDA) in Florida, was a for-profit LLC, which the District and CMH believed they were legally prohibited from funding under California law.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ agreed with Student on the core issue. While California regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 60100, subd. (h)) and the Welfare and Institutions Code generally prohibit placing students at out-of-state for-profit residential programs, the ALJ found that applying that prohibition here would violate Student's federally guaranteed right to a FAPE. The ALJ noted that California's own Education Code states that state law cannot "abrogate any rights provided to individuals with exceptional needs" under the federal IDEA (Ed. Code, § 56000, subd. (e)). In other words, when following a state rule would completely eliminate a student's right to an appropriate education, federal law wins.

The ALJ distinguished this case from a prior OAH decision (Yucaipa, 2005) that had also involved an out-of-state for-profit placement. In Yucaipa, non-profit options still existed — the parent simply refused them. Here, every non-profit option had been genuinely exhausted, leaving NDA as the only placement in the country capable of providing Student a FAPE. The ALJ also noted that if Student's family had been wealthy enough to privately fund NDA and then seek reimbursement, the District would likely have owed them that money — but Student's low-income status made that path impossible, making the legal question even more pressing. The ALJ found that Student had been denied a FAPE since May 23, 2007, when he was expelled from CSDR.

What Was Ordered

The District and CMH are required to immediately place Student at the National Deaf Academy (NDA) in Florida.
The placement at NDA is to continue through the 2008–2009 school year, funded as compensatory education to make up for the FAPE denial that began May 23, 2007.
The obligation to fund NDA terminates if Student voluntarily leaves after turning 18, or if NDA itself terminates Student's placement.

Why This Matters for Parents

When every appropriate option has been exhausted, federal law requires a solution — even an unusual one. California regulations limit where districts can place students, but those regulations cannot be used as a shield to deny a student a FAPE entirely. If your district claims it is legally "prohibited" from a certain placement, ask whether that prohibition actually leaves your child without any appropriate program at all.
Document the search thoroughly. This case turned on the fact that the District and CMH had genuinely searched nationwide and come up empty. If you are pushing for a specific placement, keep records of every program that was contacted, every rejection, and every reason given. That paper trail is what proved the exhaustion argument here.
For-profit status alone cannot disqualify the only appropriate placement. The ALJ made clear that when a for-profit program is the only one that can meet a student's needs, the district cannot hide behind a rule against for-profit placements to avoid its FAPE obligation.
Low-income families have the same FAPE rights as wealthy ones. The ALJ explicitly noted that a wealthier family could have privately funded NDA and then sought reimbursement. The fact that Student's family could not afford to do that did not eliminate their right to the placement — it just changed the path to getting there.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District and CMH are required to immediately place Student at the National Deaf Academy (NDA) in Florida.
The placement at NDA is to continue through the 2008–2009 school year, funded as compensatory education to make up for the FAPE denial that began May 23, 2007.
The obligation to fund NDA terminates if Student voluntarily leaves after turning 18, or if NDA itself terminates Student's placement.

Why This Matters for Parents

When every appropriate option has been exhausted, federal law requires a solution — even an unusual one. California regulations limit where districts can place students, but those regulations cannot be used as a shield to deny a student a FAPE entirely. If your district claims it is legally "prohibited" from a certain placement, ask whether that prohibition actually leaves your child without any appropriate program at all.
Document the search thoroughly. This case turned on the fact that the District and CMH had genuinely searched nationwide and come up empty. If you are pushing for a specific placement, keep records of every program that was contacted, every rejection, and every reason given. That paper trail is what proved the exhaustion argument here.
For-profit status alone cannot disqualify the only appropriate placement. The ALJ made clear that when a for-profit program is the only one that can meet a student's needs, the district cannot hide behind a rule against for-profit placements to avoid its FAPE obligation.
Low-income families have the same FAPE rights as wealthy ones. The ALJ explicitly noted that a wealthier family could have privately funded NDA and then sought reimbursement. The fact that Student's family could not afford to do that did not eliminate their right to the placement — it just changed the path to getting there.