Moreno Valley District Prevails: Parent's Conduct Blocked Services for Student with Autism

A 13-year-old student with autism and an autoimmune disorder attended a private Montessori school under a settlement agreement with Moreno Valley Unified School District. Parent filed multiple complaints alleging the District failed to provide speech-language services, vision therapy, OT, home hospital instruction, assistive technology, and other services. The ALJ found that Parent's own conduct — blocking communications, rejecting qualified teachers, and withholding medical information — was the primary cause of service disruptions, and ruled in the District's favor on all issues.

What Happened

Student was a 13-year-old boy with autism and an unspecified autoimmune disorder who had received special education services since preschool. Under a December 2007 settlement agreement, the District funded Student's placement at a private Montessori school (not a state-certified nonpublic school), provided occupational therapy, vision therapy, and agreed to conduct a speech-language assessment. The February 2008 IEPs incorporated the terms of that settlement. During the 2007-2008 school year, Student made academic and social progress at the Montessori school, according to his teacher and case carrier.

Parent filed due process complaints alleging that the District failed to implement speech-language services, vision therapy, extended school year services, occupational therapy, behavioral services, assistive technology, and home hospital instruction across two school years. Parent also sought compensatory education and reimbursement. The District filed its own complaint seeking authorization to implement the November 2008 IEP and to conduct a medical assessment of Student over Parent's objection. The cases were consolidated and heard over 14 hearing days.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ denied every one of Student's claims, finding that Parent's own conduct was the central reason services were not delivered — not District failures. On speech-language services, Parent blocked direct communication between the District and the private school, making it far harder to schedule services; when an alternative provider was offered (the school's own SLP), Parent rejected her because of a disability. On vision therapy, Parent incorrectly believed the District-contracted vision center did not offer therapy and never verified this — the ALJ found the services were available the entire time. On home hospital instruction, the District found three qualified teachers, but Parent stopped the first teacher's services by signing a mediated settlement agreement (which the school board then rejected), refused the second teacher "sight unseen," and rejected the third because she wanted instruction at times outside legally permitted hours.

On assistive technology, the ALJ found the District had provided laptops and that the list of sensory devices attached to the IEP was not actually agreed upon by the IEP team. On extended school year, the ALJ found ESY was never part of the settlement agreement — its inclusion in the February 2008 IEP was a clerical error that Parent was aware of. On procedural issues such as missing accommodations in the IEP and delayed IEP meetings, the ALJ found no evidence that Student was denied an educational benefit or that Parent was prevented from meaningfully participating. The District prevailed on its own issues as well: the November 2008 IEP was found to offer a FAPE, and the District was granted the right to conduct a medical assessment of Student before providing further services.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for compensatory education and reimbursement were denied in full.
The District's November 13, 2008, IEP was found to provide a free appropriate public education.
Before receiving further special education services from the District, Parent must allow the District to conduct a medical assessment of Student by a physician of the District's choosing.
Parent must provide releases of medical information within 15 days of the District's request.
Parent must make Student available for the assessment during regular school days and hours, at a location within 75 miles of Student's residence.

Why This Matters for Parents

Parent cooperation is legally relevant — and can be used against you. This case is a stark warning: when a parent blocks communications between the school district and a private school, rejects qualified service providers without justification, or withholds medical information, the ALJ may find that the District is not responsible for the resulting service gaps. Courts and ALJs evaluate whether the District made genuine efforts — not just whether services were delivered.
Verify your factual claims before making them. Parent's credibility was seriously damaged in this case by incorrect statements about attendance records and vision therapy availability. The ALJ found multiple instances where Parent's assertions were contradicted by objective evidence or the testimony of witnesses Parent called. In a due process hearing, your credibility matters enormously.
A settlement agreement defines your rights — read it carefully. The District argued (and the ALJ agreed) that the 2007 settlement covered Student's educational needs, and that services not expressly included (like ESY and AT) were not owed unless needs changed significantly. If you sign a settlement, understand exactly what you are giving up and what new needs could trigger additional obligations.
Districts can seek medical assessments to justify restrictive placements. When a student is placed in a highly restrictive setting like home hospital instruction for an extended period, the District has a legal interest in independently verifying the medical necessity. Refusing to provide medical records or consent to assessment can result in an order compelling the assessment as a condition of receiving further services.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for compensatory education and reimbursement were denied in full.
The District's November 13, 2008, IEP was found to provide a free appropriate public education.
Before receiving further special education services from the District, Parent must allow the District to conduct a medical assessment of Student by a physician of the District's choosing.
Parent must provide releases of medical information within 15 days of the District's request.
Parent must make Student available for the assessment during regular school days and hours, at a location within 75 miles of Student's residence.

Why This Matters for Parents

Parent cooperation is legally relevant — and can be used against you. This case is a stark warning: when a parent blocks communications between the school district and a private school, rejects qualified service providers without justification, or withholds medical information, the ALJ may find that the District is not responsible for the resulting service gaps. Courts and ALJs evaluate whether the District made genuine efforts — not just whether services were delivered.
Verify your factual claims before making them. Parent's credibility was seriously damaged in this case by incorrect statements about attendance records and vision therapy availability. The ALJ found multiple instances where Parent's assertions were contradicted by objective evidence or the testimony of witnesses Parent called. In a due process hearing, your credibility matters enormously.
A settlement agreement defines your rights — read it carefully. The District argued (and the ALJ agreed) that the 2007 settlement covered Student's educational needs, and that services not expressly included (like ESY and AT) were not owed unless needs changed significantly. If you sign a settlement, understand exactly what you are giving up and what new needs could trigger additional obligations.
Districts can seek medical assessments to justify restrictive placements. When a student is placed in a highly restrictive setting like home hospital instruction for an extended period, the District has a legal interest in independently verifying the medical necessity. Refusing to provide medical records or consent to assessment can result in an order compelling the assessment as a condition of receiving further services.