Parent's Request for AB 3632 Mental Health Assessment Denied — Palmdale / LA County DMH

A parent sought a court-ordered AB 3632 mental health assessment and compensatory counseling services for her 14-year-old daughter with a specific learning disability. Both the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and Palmdale School District were found not to have denied the student a FAPE. All of the parent's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

A 14-year-old girl living within the Palmdale School District boundaries was found eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability (SLD) in May 2007. Her IEP included resource specialist services and individual counseling, and noted that the District would submit a referral to the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH) for an AB 3632 mental health assessment. The student had exhibited signs of depression that appeared to negatively affect her school attendance. However, she only received two counseling sessions from a District school psychologist before the school year ended, and the District did not submit the DMH referral at that time.

After the family filed a due process complaint in June 2007, a settlement agreement was reached in August 2007 requiring the District to complete the DMH referral once it received written parental consent. The mother signed consent on August 24, 2007, but the District did not submit the referral package to DMH until approximately October 26, 2007 — about two months later. DMH rejected the referral in November 2007, finding it incomplete because it lacked evidence that school-based counseling interventions had been tried and found inadequate. The parent then filed a new due process complaint against both DMH and the District, seeking a comprehensive mental health assessment and compensatory private counseling services.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of both DMH and the District on all issues. Here is what the evidence showed:

Student did not meet all criteria for an AB 3632 referral. To qualify for a DMH mental health assessment, a student's emotional or behavioral problems must be significant in their frequency and intensity, and associated with a condition that cannot be resolved with short-term counseling. The only school psychologist who had actually counseled the student testified that the student's problems were relatively mild, that she was cooperative and responsive during their two sessions, and that school-level counseling was likely sufficient. No credible evidence contradicted this opinion.
The referral package was legally deficient. The documentation sent to DMH showed only that the student had received two counseling sessions that appeared to be effective. It did not explain why school counseling was inadequate or inappropriate — a legal requirement for a valid AB 3632 referral. DMH was legally correct to reject the incomplete referral.
The District violated the five-working-day timeline for submitting the referral. After receiving the mother's written consent on August 24, 2007, the District waited nearly two months before submitting the referral to DMH in late October 2007. The law requires referral packages to be submitted within five working days of receiving parental consent. This was a clear procedural violation.
But the District's delay did not amount to a denial of FAPE. Under the IDEA, a procedural violation only constitutes a FAPE denial if it actually harmed the student — by blocking access to services, preventing the parent from participating in decisions, or depriving the student of educational benefits. Here, DMH confirmed that even if the referral had been submitted on time in August or September 2007, it would have been rejected for the same reasons. The delay had no practical effect on the outcome, so it did not rise to a denial of FAPE.

What Was Ordered

All of the student's requests for relief were denied.
DMH was not ordered to conduct a mental health assessment.
Neither DMH nor the District was ordered to fund private counseling as compensatory education.

Why This Matters for Parents

The AB 3632 referral checklist is strict — know it before you ask. A student is not automatically entitled to a DMH mental health assessment just because they have emotional difficulties. The law requires proof that the problems are significant, persistent, and cannot be resolved by school-level counseling. Parents should gather documentation of the student's behavioral history and severity before requesting a referral.
School counseling must actually be tried and found inadequate — or shown to be clearly inappropriate — before a DMH referral will be accepted. If a student has only had a couple of counseling sessions that appeared to help, DMH can and will reject the referral. Push for more sustained school-based counseling first, document its progress (or failure), and make sure the IEP team formally records why those services were insufficient.
The referral package itself must include a written explanation of why school services are inadequate. This is a legal requirement, not optional. If the District submits a referral without this explanation, DMH will reject it and the student loses time. Ask to review the referral documentation before it is sent.
Timelines in IEPs and settlement agreements matter, but procedural violations alone may not win your case. The District broke the law by waiting two months to submit the referral — but the parent still lost because the delay caused no real harm. Courts and ALJs look at whether a violation actually hurt the student, not just whether a rule was broken. Focus on documenting concrete harm when raising procedural arguments.
Settlement agreements should always include specific deadlines. The August 2007 settlement agreement required the District to submit a referral but did not set a deadline. This gap allowed the District to argue it had unlimited time to comply. When negotiating any settlement, specify exact timeframes (e.g., "within 10 school days") for every action the District agrees to take.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of both DMH and the District on all issues. Here is what the evidence showed:

Student did not meet all criteria for an AB 3632 referral. To qualify for a DMH mental health assessment, a student's emotional or behavioral problems must be significant in their frequency and intensity, and associated with a condition that cannot be resolved with short-term counseling. The only school psychologist who had actually counseled the student testified that the student's problems were relatively mild, that she was cooperative and responsive during their two sessions, and that school-level counseling was likely sufficient. No credible evidence contradicted this opinion.
The referral package was legally deficient. The documentation sent to DMH showed only that the student had received two counseling sessions that appeared to be effective. It did not explain why school counseling was inadequate or inappropriate — a legal requirement for a valid AB 3632 referral. DMH was legally correct to reject the incomplete referral.
The District violated the five-working-day timeline for submitting the referral. After receiving the mother's written consent on August 24, 2007, the District waited nearly two months before submitting the referral to DMH in late October 2007. The law requires referral packages to be submitted within five working days of receiving parental consent. This was a clear procedural violation.
But the District's delay did not amount to a denial of FAPE. Under the IDEA, a procedural violation only constitutes a FAPE denial if it actually harmed the student — by blocking access to services, preventing the parent from participating in decisions, or depriving the student of educational benefits. Here, DMH confirmed that even if the referral had been submitted on time in August or September 2007, it would have been rejected for the same reasons. The delay had no practical effect on the outcome, so it did not rise to a denial of FAPE.

What Was Ordered

All of the student's requests for relief were denied.
DMH was not ordered to conduct a mental health assessment.
Neither DMH nor the District was ordered to fund private counseling as compensatory education.

Why This Matters for Parents

The AB 3632 referral checklist is strict — know it before you ask. A student is not automatically entitled to a DMH mental health assessment just because they have emotional difficulties. The law requires proof that the problems are significant, persistent, and cannot be resolved by school-level counseling. Parents should gather documentation of the student's behavioral history and severity before requesting a referral.
School counseling must actually be tried and found inadequate — or shown to be clearly inappropriate — before a DMH referral will be accepted. If a student has only had a couple of counseling sessions that appeared to help, DMH can and will reject the referral. Push for more sustained school-based counseling first, document its progress (or failure), and make sure the IEP team formally records why those services were insufficient.
The referral package itself must include a written explanation of why school services are inadequate. This is a legal requirement, not optional. If the District submits a referral without this explanation, DMH will reject it and the student loses time. Ask to review the referral documentation before it is sent.
Timelines in IEPs and settlement agreements matter, but procedural violations alone may not win your case. The District broke the law by waiting two months to submit the referral — but the parent still lost because the delay caused no real harm. Courts and ALJs look at whether a violation actually hurt the student, not just whether a rule was broken. Focus on documenting concrete harm when raising procedural arguments.
Settlement agreements should always include specific deadlines. The August 2007 settlement agreement required the District to submit a referral but did not set a deadline. This gap allowed the District to argue it had unlimited time to comply. When negotiating any settlement, specify exact timeframes (e.g., "within 10 school days") for every action the District agrees to take.