Which Agency Must Educate a Foster Youth Placed Out of State: OCDE vs. CDE Dispute

Orange County Department of Education and a student with emotional disturbance disputed with the California Department of Education over which agency was responsible for funding the student's out-of-state residential treatment center placement. The ALJ ruled that neither OCDE nor CDE was responsible — instead, responsibility fell on the school district where the court-appointed 'responsible adult' lived. This case turns on a complex interplay of California residency statutes and how they apply to parentless wards of the juvenile court.

What Happened

This case involved a young woman with emotional disturbance who had been a ward of the Orange County Juvenile Court since at least 2002. Her mother was deceased and her father could not be located, so the court appointed a "responsible adult" — an Irvine resident named Sue Logemann — to make educational decisions on her behalf. In May 2006, an IEP team convened by the Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) recommended placement in an out-of-state residential treatment center (RTC). The student was transferred to an RTC in Utah in July 2006, then moved to an RTC in Texas in May 2008 when she approached her 18th birthday. OCDE continued paying for the educational portion of the RTC placement under a confidential settlement agreement, but filed a due process complaint in November 2008 seeking a declaration that it was not legally responsible for her education. The student filed her own complaint in February 2009, arguing that either OCDE or the California Department of Education (CDE) owed her a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

The central question before ALJ Richard T. Breen was not whether the student received a FAPE — she did receive services — but rather which agency was legally obligated to provide it under California's residency statutes. OCDE argued it had no legal responsibility once the student left juvenile hall. The student argued CDE bore statewide responsibility. CDE argued the whole statutory scheme pointed back to local agencies determined by parental residency. After a detailed statutory analysis, the ALJ concluded that neither OCDE nor CDE was the legally responsible agency — the school district where the responsible adult (Ms. Logemann) resided bore that responsibility under California law.

What the ALJ Found

OCDE Was Not Legally Responsible After July 2006. Once the student left the OCDE-run juvenile hall and moved to an out-of-state RTC, she no longer fell within any of the exceptions in Education Code section 48204 that would have kept OCDE as the responsible agency. OCDE's continued payment was voluntary — pursuant to a settlement — not a legal obligation.
CDE Was Not the Responsible Agency. CDE's role under the IDEA is "general supervision" — ensuring that IDEA requirements are met statewide — not directly providing special education to individual students. California law assigns financial responsibility to local education agencies, not CDE, unless a local agency fails to act and CDE steps in to correct that failure.
The "Responsible Adult" Determines Residency. When read together, Education Code sections 48200, 48204, and 56028, along with Welfare and Institutions Code section 361 and Government Code section 7579.5, demonstrate that a court-appointed "responsible adult" functions as a "parent" for purposes of determining which school district must provide special education. This means the district where Ms. Logemann (the responsible adult) lived in Irvine was the legally responsible agency — not OCDE or CDE.
The January 1, 2009 Amendment Clarified, Not Changed, Existing Law. OCDE argued that the Legislature's addition of "responsible adult" to the explicit definition of "parent" in section 56028 effective January 1, 2009 proved that "responsible adult" was not included before that date. The ALJ rejected this argument, finding that the amendment merely clarified what the statute already meant.
After the Student Turned 18, the Same District Remained Responsible. Education Code section 56041 provides that for non-conserved adults, the last district of residence before the student turned 18 continues to be responsible. Since the responsible adult's residence had not changed, the same local district (where Ms. Logemann lived) remained responsible after the student's 18th birthday on November 26, 2008.
The Policy Concern About Chilling "Responsible Adult" Appointments Was Noted but Rejected. The student argued that placing financial responsibility on the district where a responsible adult lives would discourage courts from finding willing volunteers. The ALJ acknowledged this as a legitimate policy concern, but said it was a matter for the Legislature — not the courts — to fix.

What Was Ordered

It was declared that neither OCDE nor CDE was responsible for providing the student with special education services at any time after November 25, 2006.
OCDE prevailed on all issues in its case (Case One).
Both OCDE and CDE prevailed on all issues in the student's case (Case Two).
No compensatory education, reimbursement, or additional services were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child is a ward of the juvenile court, the "responsible adult" appointed by the judge is legally treated as a parent for special education purposes. This means the school district where that responsible adult lives — not necessarily where your child is placed — may be the agency obligated to provide your child's IEP services. Make sure you know who that person is and where they live.
Placement in an out-of-state residential treatment center does not eliminate the duty to provide FAPE — it just shifts which agency holds that duty. Children placed far from home still have IDEA rights. If agencies are fighting over who is responsible, the student must still receive services in the meantime. Document everything and push for continuity of placement during disputes.
Neither the state (CDE) nor a county office of education (like OCDE) automatically becomes responsible just because no obvious local district exists. California law is designed so that a local school district — determined by parental or responsible adult residency — bears the financial obligation. If you are told "no one is responsible," that is almost certainly wrong; the answer lies in carefully applying residency statutes.
If your child has a court-appointed "responsible adult" rather than a surrogate parent, that person has real legal power over educational decisions. Under California law, a responsible adult must be appointed before a surrogate parent can be assigned. Make sure the responsible adult attends IEP meetings, understands your child's needs, and advocates effectively — their role is not ceremonial.
Legislative changes to special education statutes are sometimes clarifications of existing law, not new rights. When the Legislature amended section 56028 in 2009 to explicitly mention "responsible adults," it was confirming what the law already meant. If you are dealing with events that occurred before a clarifying amendment, an advocate or attorney may be able to argue the older law already protected your child's rights.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

OCDE Was Not Legally Responsible After July 2006. Once the student left the OCDE-run juvenile hall and moved to an out-of-state RTC, she no longer fell within any of the exceptions in Education Code section 48204 that would have kept OCDE as the responsible agency. OCDE's continued payment was voluntary — pursuant to a settlement — not a legal obligation.
CDE Was Not the Responsible Agency. CDE's role under the IDEA is "general supervision" — ensuring that IDEA requirements are met statewide — not directly providing special education to individual students. California law assigns financial responsibility to local education agencies, not CDE, unless a local agency fails to act and CDE steps in to correct that failure.
The "Responsible Adult" Determines Residency. When read together, Education Code sections 48200, 48204, and 56028, along with Welfare and Institutions Code section 361 and Government Code section 7579.5, demonstrate that a court-appointed "responsible adult" functions as a "parent" for purposes of determining which school district must provide special education. This means the district where Ms. Logemann (the responsible adult) lived in Irvine was the legally responsible agency — not OCDE or CDE.
The January 1, 2009 Amendment Clarified, Not Changed, Existing Law. OCDE argued that the Legislature's addition of "responsible adult" to the explicit definition of "parent" in section 56028 effective January 1, 2009 proved that "responsible adult" was not included before that date. The ALJ rejected this argument, finding that the amendment merely clarified what the statute already meant.
After the Student Turned 18, the Same District Remained Responsible. Education Code section 56041 provides that for non-conserved adults, the last district of residence before the student turned 18 continues to be responsible. Since the responsible adult's residence had not changed, the same local district (where Ms. Logemann lived) remained responsible after the student's 18th birthday on November 26, 2008.
The Policy Concern About Chilling "Responsible Adult" Appointments Was Noted but Rejected. The student argued that placing financial responsibility on the district where a responsible adult lives would discourage courts from finding willing volunteers. The ALJ acknowledged this as a legitimate policy concern, but said it was a matter for the Legislature — not the courts — to fix.

What Was Ordered

It was declared that neither OCDE nor CDE was responsible for providing the student with special education services at any time after November 25, 2006.
OCDE prevailed on all issues in its case (Case One).
Both OCDE and CDE prevailed on all issues in the student's case (Case Two).
No compensatory education, reimbursement, or additional services were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child is a ward of the juvenile court, the "responsible adult" appointed by the judge is legally treated as a parent for special education purposes. This means the school district where that responsible adult lives — not necessarily where your child is placed — may be the agency obligated to provide your child's IEP services. Make sure you know who that person is and where they live.
Placement in an out-of-state residential treatment center does not eliminate the duty to provide FAPE — it just shifts which agency holds that duty. Children placed far from home still have IDEA rights. If agencies are fighting over who is responsible, the student must still receive services in the meantime. Document everything and push for continuity of placement during disputes.
Neither the state (CDE) nor a county office of education (like OCDE) automatically becomes responsible just because no obvious local district exists. California law is designed so that a local school district — determined by parental or responsible adult residency — bears the financial obligation. If you are told "no one is responsible," that is almost certainly wrong; the answer lies in carefully applying residency statutes.
If your child has a court-appointed "responsible adult" rather than a surrogate parent, that person has real legal power over educational decisions. Under California law, a responsible adult must be appointed before a surrogate parent can be assigned. Make sure the responsible adult attends IEP meetings, understands your child's needs, and advocates effectively — their role is not ceremonial.
Legislative changes to special education statutes are sometimes clarifications of existing law, not new rights. When the Legislature amended section 56028 in 2009 to explicitly mention "responsible adults," it was confirming what the law already meant. If you are dealing with events that occurred before a clarifying amendment, an advocate or attorney may be able to argue the older law already protected your child's rights.