District Prevails After Parent Claims IEP Was Missing Provisions She Expected

A mother claimed that the Merced Union High School District sent her a January 2009 IEP that was different from what she expected and was missing pages, and that she signed it without realizing this. The ALJ found that the IEP was complete, consistent with the meeting discussion, and that the parent understood it when she signed it. The district prevailed on the single issue decided.

What Happened

Student is a 14-year-old with a specific learning disability affecting auditory memory and language processing, as well as a speech and language impairment. He entered Merced Union High School District (District) as a ninth grader in fall 2008 and was later transferred to Golden Valley High School (GVHS) at Parent's request. A new IEP was developed at a January 9, 2009 meeting, providing for placement in a resource specialist program, a one-to-one instructional aide, 51 minutes per day of speech and language services, five hours per week of home instruction, transportation, and a detailed behavior support plan. On March 3, 2009, Student was suspended and later expelled for assaulting his instructional aide.

Parent filed a due process complaint on March 24, 2009. An earlier expedited hearing resolved the discipline and manifestation determination issues in the District's favor. The single issue remaining for the non-expedited hearing was whether the District denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by mailing Parent an IEP after the January 2009 meeting that was not what she expected — specifically, that it was missing a provision requiring the District to telephone her whenever a disciplinary problem began to develop — and that Parent signed it without realizing it was incomplete or different from what had been discussed.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found no evidence to support Parent's claims. The signed January 2009 IEP was 22 pages long, fully numbered, and contained no missing pages. The IEP's communications provisions addressed contact between Parent and the District in detail, but did not include any requirement to telephone Parent at the start of a behavioral incident — and the ALJ found no credible evidence that such a provision was ever requested at the meeting or included in any prior IEP.

The District had made an audio recording of the January 9, 2009 IEP meeting, had it transcribed, and provided the transcript to Parent. That transcript — which Parent herself introduced into evidence — confirmed that the District explained clearly that a new and different IEP was being proposed, not a repeat of any earlier document. The transcript showed that Parent participated actively, asked many questions, and understood the differences between the new IEP and prior documents. Notably, Parent also annotated the signed IEP at seven places in the text after receiving it by mail, demonstrating she read and understood it before signing.

The ALJ also addressed Parent's attempt to introduce a large collection of 379 documents at the hearing without following proper evidence exchange procedures. Despite being advised three separate times in writing of the requirement to exchange documents at least five business days before the hearing, Parent did not comply. The ALJ excluded the documents (except for the IEP meeting transcript, which the District did not oppose), and later reviewed the entire collection anyway to ensure no injustice. The ALJ found nothing in those documents that supported Parent's claims, including a January 2009 California Department of Education compliance report that Parent asserted required the District to add a telephoning provision — the report contained no such requirement.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied.
The District prevailed on the single issue decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Read every page of an IEP carefully before you sign it — and annotate your concerns in writing. In this case, the parent's own written annotations on the signed IEP were used as evidence that she had read and understood the document. If you have concerns or believe something is missing, write those concerns directly on the IEP before signing, or decline to sign and request clarification in writing.
Attending an IEP meeting by phone without a copy of the draft IEP being discussed puts you at a disadvantage. Parent followed an older IEP during the meeting because she was not given the draft the team was working from. If you are participating remotely, insist that the draft IEP be sent to you before or during the meeting so you can follow along accurately.
Follow OAH's evidence exchange rules — missing the deadline can mean your documents are excluded. The ALJ excluded nearly 380 pages of Parent's documents because they were not properly prepared and exchanged at least five business days before the hearing. OAH's scheduling orders explain these rules clearly. Failing to follow them — even if unintentional — can seriously harm your case.
A provision discussed in a meeting does not automatically end up in the final IEP. Parent believed the District had agreed to call her when behavioral problems arose, but no such provision appeared in any signed IEP. If a specific commitment is important to you, make sure it is written into the IEP document itself — meeting notes or verbal promises are not enforceable in the same way.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied.
The District prevailed on the single issue decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Read every page of an IEP carefully before you sign it — and annotate your concerns in writing. In this case, the parent's own written annotations on the signed IEP were used as evidence that she had read and understood the document. If you have concerns or believe something is missing, write those concerns directly on the IEP before signing, or decline to sign and request clarification in writing.
Attending an IEP meeting by phone without a copy of the draft IEP being discussed puts you at a disadvantage. Parent followed an older IEP during the meeting because she was not given the draft the team was working from. If you are participating remotely, insist that the draft IEP be sent to you before or during the meeting so you can follow along accurately.
Follow OAH's evidence exchange rules — missing the deadline can mean your documents are excluded. The ALJ excluded nearly 380 pages of Parent's documents because they were not properly prepared and exchanged at least five business days before the hearing. OAH's scheduling orders explain these rules clearly. Failing to follow them — even if unintentional — can seriously harm your case.
A provision discussed in a meeting does not automatically end up in the final IEP. Parent believed the District had agreed to call her when behavioral problems arose, but no such provision appeared in any signed IEP. If a specific commitment is important to you, make sure it is written into the IEP document itself — meeting notes or verbal promises are not enforceable in the same way.