Which Agency Owes FAPE to a Ward of the Court Placed Out of State?

This consolidated case asked whether Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) or the California Department of Education (CDE) was responsible for providing special education to a teenage girl who was a ward of the juvenile court and placed in out-of-state residential treatment centers. The ALJ ruled that neither OCDE nor CDE was the responsible agency — instead, the school district where the court-appointed 'responsible adult' lived held that duty. This case turns on complex California residency statutes and has significant implications for foster and dependent youth with disabilities.

What Happened

The student is a young woman born November 26, 1990, who was at all relevant times a ward of the Orange County Juvenile Court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Her mother was deceased and her father could not be located, so in February 2006 the juvenile court appointed a "responsible adult" — a private Irvine resident — to make educational decisions on her behalf. The student was eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. She had previously received services through the Fullerton School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. By May 2006, she was living in juvenile hall and attending an OCDE-run court school. Her IEP team recommended placement in an out-of-state residential treatment center (RTC), and in July 2006 she was transferred to an RTC in Utah, later moved to one in Texas when she was approaching age 18.

OCDE filed a due process complaint in November 2008 seeking a declaration that it was not financially responsible for the student's special education after she left its juvenile hall facility. The student filed her own complaint in February 2009, also naming CDE. Both parties argued the other was responsible; CDE argued neither state nor county agency bore direct responsibility. OCDE had entered a confidential settlement agreement in March 2008 and continued paying for the educational portion of the RTC placement throughout the dispute. The consolidated hearing asked one central question: from November 2006 through February 2009, which agency — OCDE or CDE — owed this student a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ determined that neither OCDE nor CDE was responsible for providing the student with special education after she was transferred out of OCDE's juvenile hall facility on July 28, 2006. The key findings were:

Residency of the "responsible adult" controls. Under California Education Code sections 48200 and 48204, the school district responsible for a student's education is determined by where the student's "parent" resides. Section 56028 defines "parent" for special education purposes and — across all versions in effect during the relevant period — included individuals "acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent," which encompassed the court-appointed "responsible adult." Because the responsible adult lived in Irvine, the school district serving Irvine (not OCDE or CDE) was the legally responsible local education agency.
OCDE is not a "parent." Section 56028 expressly excludes the state and any political subdivision of government from the definition of "parent." This means no governmental body — including OCDE or CDE — can be treated as the student's parent for residency-based responsibility purposes.
CDE's "general supervision" role does not make it the direct provider. Under IDEA, CDE is responsible for overseeing compliance statewide, but that supervisory role does not make it the agency responsible for directly providing or funding a specific student's services when the state residency scheme points elsewhere.
The January 2009 amendment to section 56028 confirmed existing law. The Legislature's addition of an express reference to "responsible adult" in the 2009 revision was a clarification of what was already implied, not a new rule. The ALJ rejected OCDE's argument that the amendment proved the prior law excluded responsible adults.
After the student turned 18, the same district remained responsible. Under Education Code section 56041, the last district of residence before a non-conserved student turns 18 continues as the responsible agency — meaning the Irvine-area district retained responsibility even after the student's eighteenth birthday.
The student's policy argument was rejected. The student argued that tying financial responsibility to a responsible adult's residence could discourage people from volunteering as responsible adults. The ALJ acknowledged this as a real concern but held it was a matter for the Legislature, not the courts or OAH, to fix.

What Was Ordered

OCDE was declared not responsible for providing special education services to the student at any time after November 25, 2006.
CDE was declared not responsible for providing special education services to the student during the relevant time period.
No compensatory education, reimbursement, or prospective placement orders were issued.
OCDE and CDE were found to be the prevailing parties on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child is a ward of the court, find out who the "responsible adult" is and where they live. Under California law, the school district responsible for your child's special education may be determined by the residence of the court-appointed responsible adult — not by where your child is actually living or receiving services. This can have major consequences for who pays for placement.
"Responsible adult" and "surrogate parent" are different roles with different legal effects. A responsible adult is appointed by a juvenile dependency judge; a surrogate parent can be appointed by a school district. California law treats these differently. If your child is a ward of the court, make sure the right person is in the right role and that their residence is documented.
Neither OCDE nor CDE will automatically step in when no parent is identifiable. This case confirms that California does not default to the state or county as the responsible education agency just because a student has no parent. If your child falls into a gap — no identifiable parent, out-of-state placement — you may need to advocate aggressively to identify which specific local district owes services.
Out-of-state placements do not end a California district's FAPE obligations. Even when a student is placed in an RTC in another state, a California school district can still be responsible for funding the educational component and holding IEP meetings. Placement location and financial responsibility are separate questions.
The Legislature can and does update these laws — stay current. The 2009 amendment to Education Code section 56028 expressly added "responsible adult" to the definition of parent for residency purposes. If you are advocating for a dependent child, check the current version of section 56028 and related statutes, because the rules have changed over time and may change again.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Residency of the "responsible adult" controls. Under California Education Code sections 48200 and 48204, the school district responsible for a student's education is determined by where the student's "parent" resides. Section 56028 defines "parent" for special education purposes and — across all versions in effect during the relevant period — included individuals "acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent," which encompassed the court-appointed "responsible adult." Because the responsible adult lived in Irvine, the school district serving Irvine (not OCDE or CDE) was the legally responsible local education agency.
OCDE is not a "parent." Section 56028 expressly excludes the state and any political subdivision of government from the definition of "parent." This means no governmental body — including OCDE or CDE — can be treated as the student's parent for residency-based responsibility purposes.
CDE's "general supervision" role does not make it the direct provider. Under IDEA, CDE is responsible for overseeing compliance statewide, but that supervisory role does not make it the agency responsible for directly providing or funding a specific student's services when the state residency scheme points elsewhere.
The January 2009 amendment to section 56028 confirmed existing law. The Legislature's addition of an express reference to "responsible adult" in the 2009 revision was a clarification of what was already implied, not a new rule. The ALJ rejected OCDE's argument that the amendment proved the prior law excluded responsible adults.
After the student turned 18, the same district remained responsible. Under Education Code section 56041, the last district of residence before a non-conserved student turns 18 continues as the responsible agency — meaning the Irvine-area district retained responsibility even after the student's eighteenth birthday.
The student's policy argument was rejected. The student argued that tying financial responsibility to a responsible adult's residence could discourage people from volunteering as responsible adults. The ALJ acknowledged this as a real concern but held it was a matter for the Legislature, not the courts or OAH, to fix.

What Was Ordered

OCDE was declared not responsible for providing special education services to the student at any time after November 25, 2006.
CDE was declared not responsible for providing special education services to the student during the relevant time period.
No compensatory education, reimbursement, or prospective placement orders were issued.
OCDE and CDE were found to be the prevailing parties on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child is a ward of the court, find out who the "responsible adult" is and where they live. Under California law, the school district responsible for your child's special education may be determined by the residence of the court-appointed responsible adult — not by where your child is actually living or receiving services. This can have major consequences for who pays for placement.
"Responsible adult" and "surrogate parent" are different roles with different legal effects. A responsible adult is appointed by a juvenile dependency judge; a surrogate parent can be appointed by a school district. California law treats these differently. If your child is a ward of the court, make sure the right person is in the right role and that their residence is documented.
Neither OCDE nor CDE will automatically step in when no parent is identifiable. This case confirms that California does not default to the state or county as the responsible education agency just because a student has no parent. If your child falls into a gap — no identifiable parent, out-of-state placement — you may need to advocate aggressively to identify which specific local district owes services.
Out-of-state placements do not end a California district's FAPE obligations. Even when a student is placed in an RTC in another state, a California school district can still be responsible for funding the educational component and holding IEP meetings. Placement location and financial responsibility are separate questions.
The Legislature can and does update these laws — stay current. The 2009 amendment to Education Code section 56028 expressly added "responsible adult" to the definition of parent for residency purposes. If you are advocating for a dependent child, check the current version of section 56028 and related statutes, because the rules have changed over time and may change again.