Newport-Mesa Required to Fund Student's Out-of-State RTC Because Responsible Adult Lived There

A 16-year-old foster youth with emotional disturbance was placed in an out-of-state residential treatment center while under juvenile court dependency. This consolidated case determined which California agency — OCDE, CDE, or Newport-Mesa Unified — was responsible to fund her special education during that placement. The ALJ ruled that Newport-Mesa, as the school district where the court-appointed 'responsible adult' lived, was legally obligated to provide FAPE from March 9, 2007 through December 31, 2008.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old girl eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. Her parental rights had been terminated in 2004, and she was a dependent of the Orange County Juvenile Court. In December 2006, the court appointed a "responsible adult" — a woman named Laura Van de Merghel who lived within the boundaries of Newport-Mesa Unified School District — to make educational decisions for Student. At the time, Student was living at Orangewood Children's Home, a licensed children's institution served by OCDE. In January 2007, Student's IEP team agreed to place her in an out-of-state residential treatment center (RTC), and she remained there from March 9, 2007 through December 31, 2008. OCDE paid for the educational portion of that placement under a confidential settlement agreement, but filed a due process complaint seeking a declaration that it was not financially responsible. Student separately filed her own complaint, naming OCDE, CDE, and Newport-Mesa.

The central dispute was a three-way disagreement about which agency — OCDE (the county office that served Orangewood), CDE (the state education agency), or Newport-Mesa (where the responsible adult lived) — was legally required to provide FAPE to a parentless ward of the juvenile court placed in an out-of-state facility. OCDE and Student both argued that CDE bore ultimate responsibility if no local district could be identified. CDE argued that the school district of the responsible adult's residence — Newport-Mesa — was always the responsible agency under California law. Newport-Mesa disputed that the law ever included a "responsible adult" in the definition of "parent" before a 2009 statutory amendment.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ sided with CDE's legal interpretation and found Newport-Mesa responsible for providing FAPE during the disputed period. Key legal findings included:

"Responsible adult" was included in the definition of "parent" before 2009. Education Code section 56028 — both before and after October 2007 — defined "parent" broadly enough to include a court-appointed responsible adult acting in place of a biological or adoptive parent. Newport-Mesa's argument that the 2009 statutory amendment created a new rule was rejected; the ALJ found the amendment merely clarified existing law.
Residency of the responsible adult controls which district is responsible. Under Education Code sections 48200 and 48204, the school district where a student's "parent" resides is responsible for providing education. Since Student's court-appointed responsible adult lived within Newport-Mesa boundaries, Newport-Mesa was the responsible local education agency.
OCDE's responsibility ended when Student left Orangewood. OCDE was properly responsible while Student lived at Orangewood because it was a licensed children's institution within OCDE's jurisdiction. After Student moved to the out-of-state RTC on March 9, 2007, none of the exceptions in section 48204 applied to OCDE, and its responsibility ended.
CDE was not responsible as the default agency. While CDE has "general supervision" duties under the IDEA, the ALJ found that California law clearly designates a local district — not the state — as the responsible provider whenever an identifiable individual (such as a responsible adult) can serve as the child's "parent" for residency purposes. The statute expressly excludes governmental bodies from the definition of "parent."
The A.S. federal district court ruling was not persuasive. The ALJ declined to follow Orange County Dept. of Education v. A.S. (C.D. Cal. 2008), a case involving similar parties, because it was only a ruling on a motion to dismiss and failed to analyze the relationship between sections 56028 and 48200.

What Was Ordered

Newport-Mesa Unified School District was declared responsible for providing FAPE to Student from March 9, 2007 through December 31, 2008.
OCDE prevailed on the issues it raised in Case One (i.e., it was found not responsible for the RTC placement during the disputed period).
Student prevailed as against Newport-Mesa only in Case Two.
No specific compensatory services or prospective placement orders were issued — the decision was declaratory, establishing which agency bore financial and programmatic responsibility.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child is a foster youth or ward of the court, the school district where the responsible adult lives is likely the one legally required to serve your child — even if your child lives far away or out of state. Parents, advocates, and responsible adults should identify which district that is before placement decisions are made so services do not fall through the cracks.
"Responsible adult" and "surrogate parent" are not the same thing under California law. A responsible adult is appointed by a juvenile court judge; a surrogate parent is appointed by a school district. If a juvenile court has appointed someone to make educational decisions for a child, that person's residence determines which district is responsible — a critical distinction that Newport-Mesa lost in this case.
When agencies disagree about who is responsible, students can end up stuck in the middle. In this case, OCDE voluntarily continued paying under a settlement while the legal fight played out over nearly two years. Families should know that if agencies dispute responsibility, they can file their own due process complaint (as Student did in Case Two) to force a resolution — and the student's right to services cannot be suspended in the meantime.
State law can be interpreted even when it appears ambiguous. Newport-Mesa argued the pre-2009 statute did not clearly cover responsible adults. The ALJ disagreed, using rules of statutory construction and legislative history to find the law always meant what CDE said it meant. Parents should not accept an agency's claim that "the law doesn't cover this situation" without independent legal review.
Out-of-state placements don't eliminate California's responsibility to provide FAPE. The fact that Student was in a residential treatment center in another state did not relieve any California agency of its legal duty — it simply determined which California agency was on the hook. Placement location does not end FAPE obligations.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ sided with CDE's legal interpretation and found Newport-Mesa responsible for providing FAPE during the disputed period. Key legal findings included:

"Responsible adult" was included in the definition of "parent" before 2009. Education Code section 56028 — both before and after October 2007 — defined "parent" broadly enough to include a court-appointed responsible adult acting in place of a biological or adoptive parent. Newport-Mesa's argument that the 2009 statutory amendment created a new rule was rejected; the ALJ found the amendment merely clarified existing law.
Residency of the responsible adult controls which district is responsible. Under Education Code sections 48200 and 48204, the school district where a student's "parent" resides is responsible for providing education. Since Student's court-appointed responsible adult lived within Newport-Mesa boundaries, Newport-Mesa was the responsible local education agency.
OCDE's responsibility ended when Student left Orangewood. OCDE was properly responsible while Student lived at Orangewood because it was a licensed children's institution within OCDE's jurisdiction. After Student moved to the out-of-state RTC on March 9, 2007, none of the exceptions in section 48204 applied to OCDE, and its responsibility ended.
CDE was not responsible as the default agency. While CDE has "general supervision" duties under the IDEA, the ALJ found that California law clearly designates a local district — not the state — as the responsible provider whenever an identifiable individual (such as a responsible adult) can serve as the child's "parent" for residency purposes. The statute expressly excludes governmental bodies from the definition of "parent."
The A.S. federal district court ruling was not persuasive. The ALJ declined to follow Orange County Dept. of Education v. A.S. (C.D. Cal. 2008), a case involving similar parties, because it was only a ruling on a motion to dismiss and failed to analyze the relationship between sections 56028 and 48200.

What Was Ordered

Newport-Mesa Unified School District was declared responsible for providing FAPE to Student from March 9, 2007 through December 31, 2008.
OCDE prevailed on the issues it raised in Case One (i.e., it was found not responsible for the RTC placement during the disputed period).
Student prevailed as against Newport-Mesa only in Case Two.
No specific compensatory services or prospective placement orders were issued — the decision was declaratory, establishing which agency bore financial and programmatic responsibility.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child is a foster youth or ward of the court, the school district where the responsible adult lives is likely the one legally required to serve your child — even if your child lives far away or out of state. Parents, advocates, and responsible adults should identify which district that is before placement decisions are made so services do not fall through the cracks.
"Responsible adult" and "surrogate parent" are not the same thing under California law. A responsible adult is appointed by a juvenile court judge; a surrogate parent is appointed by a school district. If a juvenile court has appointed someone to make educational decisions for a child, that person's residence determines which district is responsible — a critical distinction that Newport-Mesa lost in this case.
When agencies disagree about who is responsible, students can end up stuck in the middle. In this case, OCDE voluntarily continued paying under a settlement while the legal fight played out over nearly two years. Families should know that if agencies dispute responsibility, they can file their own due process complaint (as Student did in Case Two) to force a resolution — and the student's right to services cannot be suspended in the meantime.
State law can be interpreted even when it appears ambiguous. Newport-Mesa argued the pre-2009 statute did not clearly cover responsible adults. The ALJ disagreed, using rules of statutory construction and legislative history to find the law always meant what CDE said it meant. Parents should not accept an agency's claim that "the law doesn't cover this situation" without independent legal review.
Out-of-state placements don't eliminate California's responsibility to provide FAPE. The fact that Student was in a residential treatment center in another state did not relieve any California agency of its legal duty — it simply determined which California agency was on the hook. Placement location does not end FAPE obligations.