District Wins: Parents Lose Reimbursement After Placing Teen Out-of-State Before Assessment

A high school junior with a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder was placed by her parents at an out-of-state boarding school after two psychiatric hospitalizations in fall 2007. Parents sought reimbursement for tuition, travel, and medical expenses totaling over $110,000. The ALJ found that while the district did violate its child find obligation as of October 9, 2007, parents' decision to immediately remove Student out of state and keep her unavailable for assessment for nearly a year was unreasonable, barring any reimbursement.

What Happened

Student was a high school student in Capistrano Unified School District who had earned strong grades as a freshman but began to struggle emotionally during her sophomore year. In November 2006, she was hospitalized for eight days after threatening self-harm at school and received a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. Despite this crisis, her grades remained passing and her behavior at school did not raise red flags — so the district took no action to evaluate her for special education. During her junior year in fall 2007, Student was hospitalized twice at a university neuropsychiatric center for suicidal ideation and self-mutilation, missed two weeks of school, and began receiving failing grades.

After a Student Study Team (SST) meeting on October 9, 2007, where the district declined to initiate a special education assessment, Parents became desperate. On October 15, 2007, they learned Student had contemplated suicide the night before. The very next day, they drove Student to Copper Canyon Academy (CCA), a therapeutic boarding school in Arizona, without giving the district the legally required 10-day advance notice. Parents then sought reimbursement from the district for CCA tuition ($95,843), travel ($5,516), hospital bills ($8,768), and prior therapy costs ($1,805). The district was not able to complete its assessment of Student until October and November 2008 — nearly a year after the referral — because Student remained unavailable at the out-of-state placement. The assessment ultimately found Student eligible for special education under the category of Emotional Disturbance in November 2008.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district did violate its child find obligation — but only starting October 9, 2007, not from November 2006 as Parents argued. During the 2006–2007 school year, Student's problems were primarily occurring at home, and there was insufficient evidence that her disability was adversely affecting her education at school. Her grades, while lower than freshman year, were still passing, and school staff had no reports of behavioral problems or academic crisis. The district's forensic psychiatry expert persuasively testified that nothing in Student's records from that period would have indicated a disability adversely affecting her education.

However, by fall 2007, the picture had changed enough — two psychiatric hospitalizations, excessive absences, and failing grades — that the district should have initiated an assessment. It failed to do so promptly at the SST meeting. That was a real procedural violation. But the ALJ concluded it did not rise to the level of a denial of FAPE, because Parents made Student unavailable for assessment almost immediately by placing her out of state. The district made multiple attempts to assess Student — offering to travel to Arizona, preparing assessment plans, and following up in writing — but was repeatedly blocked either by Parents' objections to paperwork or CCA's refusal to make Student available. Parents did not produce Student for assessment until October 2008. Because Student was unavailable, the procedural failure did not actually deprive her of any educational benefit. On the reimbursement claim, the ALJ found Parents' conduct unreasonable: rather than re-admitting Student to the local hospital where she had just been treated, they drove her to another state and kept her inaccessible for nearly a year. Prior therapy and hospital bills were also denied because they predated any child find violation.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in full.
No reimbursement was awarded for CCA tuition, travel costs, hospital admissions, or prior therapy expenses.
Student prevailed in part on Issue One (child find violation as of October 9, 2007), but this finding carried no monetary remedy given the circumstances.

Why This Matters for Parents

A child find violation alone does not guarantee reimbursement. Even when a district fails to meet its legal obligation to evaluate a child, parents can lose their reimbursement claim if their own actions — like removing a child from the district before assessment — are found to be unreasonable. The violation and the remedy are separate legal questions.
Keeping your child available for assessment is critical. If you pull your child out of the district before allowing the district a reasonable opportunity to assess, you risk being found to have caused the delay yourself. Courts and ALJs will look at whether parents cooperated with the assessment process, not just whether the district dragged its feet.
The 10-day notice rule has exceptions for emergencies, but acting reasonably still matters. Parents were excused from the notice requirement because of the genuine suicide risk — but the ALJ still found the decision to go out of state unreasonable when local hospital re-admission was available. In a true emergency, seek local crisis resources first and document why they were insufficient before pursuing an out-of-state placement.
A slip in grades alone, even after a psychiatric hospitalization, may not trigger child find. The ALJ found the district was not obligated to evaluate Student during her sophomore year, even after a hospitalization, because her school performance and behavior at school did not clearly reflect a disability. Parents should document how a child's disability is affecting them at school — not just at home — to build a stronger case for evaluation.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in full.
No reimbursement was awarded for CCA tuition, travel costs, hospital admissions, or prior therapy expenses.
Student prevailed in part on Issue One (child find violation as of October 9, 2007), but this finding carried no monetary remedy given the circumstances.

Why This Matters for Parents

A child find violation alone does not guarantee reimbursement. Even when a district fails to meet its legal obligation to evaluate a child, parents can lose their reimbursement claim if their own actions — like removing a child from the district before assessment — are found to be unreasonable. The violation and the remedy are separate legal questions.
Keeping your child available for assessment is critical. If you pull your child out of the district before allowing the district a reasonable opportunity to assess, you risk being found to have caused the delay yourself. Courts and ALJs will look at whether parents cooperated with the assessment process, not just whether the district dragged its feet.
The 10-day notice rule has exceptions for emergencies, but acting reasonably still matters. Parents were excused from the notice requirement because of the genuine suicide risk — but the ALJ still found the decision to go out of state unreasonable when local hospital re-admission was available. In a true emergency, seek local crisis resources first and document why they were insufficient before pursuing an out-of-state placement.
A slip in grades alone, even after a psychiatric hospitalization, may not trigger child find. The ALJ found the district was not obligated to evaluate Student during her sophomore year, even after a hospitalization, because her school performance and behavior at school did not clearly reflect a disability. Parents should document how a child's disability is affecting them at school — not just at home — to build a stronger case for evaluation.