District Wins IEE Dispute After Parents Refused to Cooperate with Assessments

Capistrano Unified School District filed for due process after a parent requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense, disagreeing with the district's assessments of their 15-year-old son with autism. The ALJ found the district's assessments were comprehensive, valid, and legally appropriate, and ruled the district was not required to fund the IEE. Notably, the parents had repeatedly refused to cooperate with assessors throughout the evaluation process.

What Happened

Student is a 15-year-old boy with autism, severe cognitive delays, and significant communication deficits who attends a special day class at Tesoro High School within Capistrano Unified School District. He had previously attended Newheart Special Classes, a program run by the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE), where his challenging behaviors had improved significantly. After disagreements arose between Student's parents and school staff about his goals and performance levels, OCDE proposed a comprehensive reassessment. Student's father signed the assessment plan on July 1, 2007, adding a request for a functional analysis assessment (FAA) to address concerns about self-injurious and maladaptive behaviors he reported seeing at home.

OCDE and the District then conducted a wide-ranging evaluation covering cognitive development, academic achievement, speech and language, behavior, occupational therapy, health, and psychomotor skills. Despite the parents signing off on the assessment plan, they repeatedly declined to participate in the process — refusing interviews, returning rating scale forms with answers invalidated by writing "not applicable" on 38% of questions, declining a home visit from the behavior assessor, and ultimately not attending the IEP meeting held to review the results. On November 7, 2007, the parents requested an IEE at public expense, and the District responded by filing for due process to defend the validity of its assessments rather than pay for an independent evaluation.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor, finding that the assessments were valid, comprehensive, and legally appropriate in every key respect. Each assessor was qualified and knowledgeable about autism, used tests validated for students with autism and administered in Student's primary language of English, and relied on multiple sources of information rather than a single test. The psychoeducational assessment used the Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised — specifically chosen because it requires no spoken instructions, making it appropriate for students with limited language. The speech-language assessment used standardized vocabulary tests appropriate for students with autism, supplemented by criterion-referenced measures. The functional analysis assessment followed all legal requirements, including systematic observation, records review, and attempts to gather information from family members.

The ALJ addressed two arguments that could have helped the parents. First, the fact that assessors could not obtain valid input from the parents did not make the assessments invalid — the ALJ found that parents cannot refuse every reasonable attempt to provide input and then turn around and challenge the assessment for lacking that input. Second, the parents' absence from the September 25, 2007 IEP meeting did not invalidate the assessments. The District had made multiple efforts to find a meeting time that worked for the family, offered to extend the statutory 60-day deadline with the parents' written agreement, and sent follow-up materials after the meeting. Because the parents declined to sign the extension form, the District was legally required to hold the meeting within the statutory timeline.

What Was Ordered

The assessments conducted by OCDE and the District pursuant to the assessment plan signed on July 1, 2007, were found to be comprehensive, valid, and appropriate.
The District is not required to fund an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense based on the parents' November 7, 2007 request.
The District prevailed on all issues. No relief was ordered for Student or the parents.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to an IEE, but the district can challenge it in court. When you request an IEE at public expense, the district must either pay for it or file for a due process hearing to defend their own assessments. If the district wins that hearing, you can still get an independent evaluation — but you'll have to pay for it yourself. This case shows that districts do file these challenges and sometimes win.
Refusing to participate in an assessment can backfire. The parents in this case declined interviews, returned incomplete forms, and refused a home visit. The ALJ specifically held that parents cannot block every attempt to gather information and then argue the assessment was inadequate for lack of that information. If you have concerns about an assessment, engage with the process — share your perspective in writing, ask questions, and document your disagreements rather than refusing to participate.
The 60-day assessment timeline is legally binding — and silence is not an extension. Districts must hold an IEP meeting to review assessment results within 60 days of receiving your signed consent (not counting school breaks). If you need more time, you must sign a written agreement to extend the deadline. If you don't, the district can and will hold the meeting without you, and you cannot later object to the timing.
Attend IEP meetings, even when you disagree. The parents in this case were offered multiple meeting times, phone participation options, and follow-up communications — and still did not attend. Participation in IEP meetings is one of the most important rights parents have. Showing up — even to formally object and record your disagreement — is far more protective of your child's rights than staying home.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The assessments conducted by OCDE and the District pursuant to the assessment plan signed on July 1, 2007, were found to be comprehensive, valid, and appropriate.
The District is not required to fund an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense based on the parents' November 7, 2007 request.
The District prevailed on all issues. No relief was ordered for Student or the parents.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to an IEE, but the district can challenge it in court. When you request an IEE at public expense, the district must either pay for it or file for a due process hearing to defend their own assessments. If the district wins that hearing, you can still get an independent evaluation — but you'll have to pay for it yourself. This case shows that districts do file these challenges and sometimes win.
Refusing to participate in an assessment can backfire. The parents in this case declined interviews, returned incomplete forms, and refused a home visit. The ALJ specifically held that parents cannot block every attempt to gather information and then argue the assessment was inadequate for lack of that information. If you have concerns about an assessment, engage with the process — share your perspective in writing, ask questions, and document your disagreements rather than refusing to participate.
The 60-day assessment timeline is legally binding — and silence is not an extension. Districts must hold an IEP meeting to review assessment results within 60 days of receiving your signed consent (not counting school breaks). If you need more time, you must sign a written agreement to extend the deadline. If you don't, the district can and will hold the meeting without you, and you cannot later object to the timing.
Attend IEP meetings, even when you disagree. The parents in this case were offered multiple meeting times, phone participation options, and follow-up communications — and still did not attend. Participation in IEP meetings is one of the most important rights parents have. Showing up — even to formally object and record your disagreement — is far more protective of your child's rights than staying home.