District Wins: Parents' Unilateral Private School Placement Not Reimbursable

A family removed their son from Hermosa Beach City School District and enrolled him in a private non-public school (Summit View), then sought reimbursement. The ALJ found the District had provided a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) at all relevant times, that the parent's decision to withdraw Student was driven by a conflict over a classroom parent volunteer rather than any failure by the District, and denied all of the family's requested relief.

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old boy with speech and language delays, attention difficulties, and an immune deficiency that made him prone to ear infections and illness. He was eligible for special education under the categories of speech/language impairment and other health impairment. During kindergarten and first grade at a District elementary school, Student received a range of services in a general education classroom: resource specialist program (RSP) pull-out sessions, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and the support of a one-to-one aide. Multiple teachers, therapists, and aides testified that Student was making measurable academic and social progress, had close friendships, transitioned between activities without significant difficulty, and generally appeared happy at school.

In the spring of first grade, a conflict arose between Mother and a parent who was volunteering in Student's classroom. Mother feared this volunteer might share Student's private educational and medical information with other families, repeating a painful experience from a prior school year. Shortly after this conflict, in May 2007, Student was withdrawn from the District. The family told the District the withdrawal was for family reasons — a sibling's graduation and out-of-town relatives — and did not tell the District they were concerned about the provision of FAPE or that they intended to enroll Student in a private school at District expense. Student spent the summer of 2007 out of school and began at Summit View, a non-public school for students with learning disabilities, in September 2007. Parents then sought reimbursement from the District for Summit View tuition, occupational therapy, speech therapy, counseling, and transportation costs totaling tens of thousands of dollars. The District had also convened a comprehensive IEP meeting on November 29, 2007, and subsequent amendment meetings, offering Student a program in the least restrictive environment with substantial related services.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor and denied all of Student's requested relief. The ALJ found that Student had made genuine, documented progress in the District program throughout kindergarten and first grade — in reading, math, writing, speech, and social skills — and that the District's IEPs were appropriately designed to meet his unique needs. The evidence from Student's teachers, RSP instructor, speech therapist, and aide was consistent and credible: Student was not overwhelmed by transitions, was not socially isolated, and was not unhappy in the District placement before Mother decided to withdraw him.

The ALJ found that the true reason for Student's removal from the District was Mother's concern about the parent volunteer — not any failure to provide FAPE. This finding was supported by the family's own communications to the District at the time, by Father's hearing testimony, by Student's application to Summit View (which described Student as a "happy, determined little boy" whose medical issues did not interfere with school), and by Student's pediatrician, who testified unequivocally that there was no medical reason to remove Student from the District program. The ALJ also found that the November 29, 2007 IEP and its amendments were procedurally proper and substantively appropriate, offering Student placement in the least restrictive environment with well-designed goals and related services calibrated to his then-current needs. Because the District provided FAPE at all relevant times, the family was not entitled to reimbursement for the private placement.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requested relief was denied.
The IEP dated November 29, 2007, as subsequently amended on January 14, 2008, February 19, 2008, and March 24, 2008, was found to have offered Student a FAPE.
The District prevailed on all issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

The reason you give for withdrawing your child matters enormously. If you remove your child from a District program without telling the District you believe FAPE is being denied — and without giving written notice of your intent to seek reimbursement — you may lose the right to be reimbursed later, even if problems existed. Document your FAPE concerns in writing to the District before making any private placement decision.
Progress, even if incomplete, defeats a FAPE denial claim. The ALJ did not require Student to meet every goal — only that he made meaningful progress toward them. If the District can show your child advanced academically, socially, or in related-services areas while enrolled, that evidence weighs heavily against a finding that FAPE was denied.
Placement decisions are judged by what the District knew at the time, not in hindsight. The ALJ applied a "what was reasonable then" standard, not a "what we know now" standard. If you had concerns about your child's emotional health, anxiety, or unmet needs, you needed to raise those concerns with the District at the time — not only at hearing months later.
A unilateral private placement requires proving the District failed first. To win reimbursement for a private school you chose without District agreement, you must prove two things: (1) the District did not offer FAPE, and (2) your chosen private school was appropriate. Here, parents could not prove the first element, so the ALJ never even reached the question of whether Summit View was appropriate.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requested relief was denied.
The IEP dated November 29, 2007, as subsequently amended on January 14, 2008, February 19, 2008, and March 24, 2008, was found to have offered Student a FAPE.
The District prevailed on all issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

The reason you give for withdrawing your child matters enormously. If you remove your child from a District program without telling the District you believe FAPE is being denied — and without giving written notice of your intent to seek reimbursement — you may lose the right to be reimbursed later, even if problems existed. Document your FAPE concerns in writing to the District before making any private placement decision.
Progress, even if incomplete, defeats a FAPE denial claim. The ALJ did not require Student to meet every goal — only that he made meaningful progress toward them. If the District can show your child advanced academically, socially, or in related-services areas while enrolled, that evidence weighs heavily against a finding that FAPE was denied.
Placement decisions are judged by what the District knew at the time, not in hindsight. The ALJ applied a "what was reasonable then" standard, not a "what we know now" standard. If you had concerns about your child's emotional health, anxiety, or unmet needs, you needed to raise those concerns with the District at the time — not only at hearing months later.
A unilateral private placement requires proving the District failed first. To win reimbursement for a private school you chose without District agreement, you must prove two things: (1) the District did not offer FAPE, and (2) your chosen private school was appropriate. Here, parents could not prove the first element, so the ALJ never even reached the question of whether Summit View was appropriate.