District Prevails: Bonsall Upholds Sullivan Placement for Student with Asperger's

Parents of a 13-year-old with Asperger's syndrome and specific learning disability challenged Bonsall Union School District's offer to place their son at the local public middle school with resource support, arguing the district predetermined placement, failed to include benchmarks in IEP goals, and that the placement was inappropriate. The ALJ found in favor of the district on all issues, concluding that Parents had meaningfully participated in the IEP process, the proposed placement at Sullivan Middle School offered a FAPE in the least restrictive environment, and that no procedural violations rose to the level of a FAPE denial.

What Happened

Student was a 13-year-old boy diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome (high-functioning autism) and specific learning disability. He had a complicated educational history that included receiving special education services in Illinois, attending private schools in California without special education services, enduring serious bullying at his prior private school, and a psychiatric hospitalization for suicidal ideation and depression shortly after enrolling at the district's public middle school, Sullivan Middle School. Parents requested that the district place Student at The Winston School, a private nonpublic school, and fund Lindamood-Bell language services — both at significant cost.

The district conducted a full psychoeducational and speech-language assessment in fall 2008 and held three IEP meetings in November 2008. Over the course of those meetings, the IEP team discussed 21 goals across multiple areas of need, with Parents and their attorney actively participating. The district ultimately offered Student a placement at Sullivan with resource specialist (RSP) support, speech-language services, counseling, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education. Parents rejected this offer, withdrew Student, enrolled him at Winston, and filed for due process seeking reimbursement for tuition, Lindamood-Bell fees, and transportation costs.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. Here is how each claim was addressed:

Goals and parental participation: Parents argued the district improperly cut off discussion of five parent-drafted goals at the November 18 IEP meeting. The ALJ found that goals were discussed extensively over multiple meetings, 21 goals were ultimately adopted (including a math reasoning goal Parents had requested), and Parents and their attorney had actively participated throughout. The law does not require the district to adopt every parent-proposed goal — only to give parents a genuine opportunity to participate, which the district did.

Social skills goal: Parents wanted a specific social skills goal that did not include adult prompting, arguing Student could already meet the goal with adult help. The ALJ found that Student genuinely needed adult support to sustain peer interactions, and the goal as written — requiring adult cues to maintain a conversation for three minutes — was appropriate based on school staff's direct observations.

General education teacher absence at November 18 meeting: The IDEA requires at least one general education teacher at IEP meetings. Teachers were present at the November 3 and November 17 meetings but not November 18. The ALJ found this procedural gap did not deny Student a FAPE because teachers had already provided substantial input at prior meetings, Parents rejected the placement for other reasons entirely, and — critically — Parents had withheld from the district that Student had been psychiatrically hospitalized during the very assessment period the IEP was based on.

Benchmarks: Parents demanded that IEP goals include benchmarks (short-term objectives). The ALJ found that under current IDEA law, benchmarks are only required when a student takes alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards — which Student did not. The district had no legal obligation to include benchmarks.

Predetermination: Parents argued the district never seriously considered Winston or Lindamood-Bell. The ALJ found no evidence of predetermination — the district director was actively investigating proposed NPS placements even after making the placement offer, and Parents chose to withdraw from meaningful participation during the placement discussion portion of the final meeting.

Placement appropriateness and LRE: The ALJ concluded Sullivan offered a FAPE. Student had been passing his classes, participating in class discussions, and experiencing positive (if brief) peer interactions even without any IEP in place. The single teasing incident did not make Sullivan inappropriate. Expert witnesses called by Parents were found unpersuasive — one lacked special education credentials, and the other had observed only one class at Winston without knowing Student's IEP offer.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district was not required to fund tuition at The Winston School.
The district was not required to fund Lindamood-Bell services.
The district was not required to pay transportation costs to either placement.
The district was not required to develop new IEP goals with general education teacher input as a remedy.

Why This Matters for Parents

Withholding critical information from your IEP team can backfire. Parents did not tell the district that Student had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons during the assessment period. The ALJ specifically cited this as a factor weighing against Parents on multiple issues. When you want the district to understand your child's full needs, the IEP team needs the full picture — including hospitalizations, mental health diagnoses, and outside treatment.
Active participation in IEP meetings is legally meaningful — even if you disagree with the outcome. The district prevailed largely because Parents and their attorney had extensive opportunities to speak, ask questions, propose goals, and challenge the team's decisions. Courts and ALJs distinguish between "I disagreed" and "I was not allowed to participate." Documenting your disagreement in writing is important, but it does not itself prove a procedural violation.
Benchmarks in IEP goals are no longer legally required for most students. Since 2004, the IDEA only requires short-term objectives or benchmarks for students who take alternate assessments. If your child takes standard state assessments, you cannot legally compel the district to include benchmarks — though you can request them and note your preference in the IEP notes.
A student performing adequately in general education — even without services — can undercut a claim that a more restrictive private placement is necessary. The fact that Student was passing classes, participating, and not being bullied at Sullivan, even before his IEP was implemented, was central to the ALJ's conclusion that Sullivan was appropriate. If your child is struggling significantly in the public school environment, document that thoroughly with grades, teacher reports, and outside evaluations before disputing a placement.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. Here is how each claim was addressed:

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district was not required to fund tuition at The Winston School.
The district was not required to fund Lindamood-Bell services.
The district was not required to pay transportation costs to either placement.
The district was not required to develop new IEP goals with general education teacher input as a remedy.

Why This Matters for Parents

Withholding critical information from your IEP team can backfire. Parents did not tell the district that Student had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons during the assessment period. The ALJ specifically cited this as a factor weighing against Parents on multiple issues. When you want the district to understand your child's full needs, the IEP team needs the full picture — including hospitalizations, mental health diagnoses, and outside treatment.
Active participation in IEP meetings is legally meaningful — even if you disagree with the outcome. The district prevailed largely because Parents and their attorney had extensive opportunities to speak, ask questions, propose goals, and challenge the team's decisions. Courts and ALJs distinguish between "I disagreed" and "I was not allowed to participate." Documenting your disagreement in writing is important, but it does not itself prove a procedural violation.
Benchmarks in IEP goals are no longer legally required for most students. Since 2004, the IDEA only requires short-term objectives or benchmarks for students who take alternate assessments. If your child takes standard state assessments, you cannot legally compel the district to include benchmarks — though you can request them and note your preference in the IEP notes.
A student performing adequately in general education — even without services — can undercut a claim that a more restrictive private placement is necessary. The fact that Student was passing classes, participating, and not being bullied at Sullivan, even before his IEP was implemented, was central to the ALJ's conclusion that Sullivan was appropriate. If your child is struggling significantly in the public school environment, document that thoroughly with grades, teacher reports, and outside evaluations before disputing a placement.