District Wins: Residential Placement at Hillsides Upheld Despite Parent's Push for Out-of-State RAD Program

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old girl with Emotional Disturbance (ED) and a Specific Learning Disability affecting auditory and visual memory. She also carries clinical diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Student has a deeply difficult early history — she was removed from an abusive home at age two, cycled through six foster placements, was later adopted, and experienced continued trauma including molestation in her adoptive home. By the time she entered middle school, she was exhibiting severe aggression toward family members, including threatening violence with a knife and requiring police intervention. She had been hospitalized psychiatrically four times before age 11. In August 2007, with her adoptive mother's consent and a referral from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH), Student was placed at Hillsides, a certified residential treatment facility in Pasadena offering both a therapeutic program and an accredited school on-site.

At a November 4, 2008 IEP meeting, the District and DMH jointly recommended that Student continue her placement at Hillsides for the 2008–2009 school year. Student's mother disagreed, believing that Student had Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) — a severe attachment condition — and that Hillsides was not equipped to treat it. Mother wanted Student moved to Chaddock, a residential facility in Quincy, Illinois, which she believed was the only program in the country specifically designed for children with RAD. Mother refused to consent to the Hillsides placement and filed for due process in April 2009, asking that District and DMH pay for the Chaddock placement.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the District and DMH, finding that the November 4, 2008 IEP offered Student a FAPE at Hillsides. The parent's claims were denied on every ground.

On the RAD diagnosis, the ALJ found that Student did not produce a qualified expert — no psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or medical professional — who could establish that Student actually had RAD. Student's treating psychiatrist at Hillsides testified that RAD is an extreme and uncommon disorder, and that Student's behaviors were more consistent with Bipolar Disorder and PTSD. The parent's key witness on this issue was a former live-in nanny with experience in parenting children with attachment issues, but she had no clinical license, had not observed either Hillsides or Chaddock's programs directly, and was not fully familiar with Student's history. The ALJ gave her testimony little weight.

On progress, the ALJ found that Student had in fact made meaningful gains at Hillsides. She went from being withdrawn and non-expressive to being outgoing, socially engaged, a self-advocate, and well-liked by staff and peers. She had not been hospitalized once since placement — a significant improvement given her four prior hospitalizations. Her grades were consistently good. The ALJ rejected the parent's argument that declining STAR standardized test scores proved lack of progress, noting that STAR results are only one measure and must be read alongside grades, classroom performance, and other indicators. The ALJ also applied the "snapshot rule" — an IEP is judged by what was reasonable at the time it was written, not by what happened afterward.

Finally, even if the Hillsides placement had been found inappropriate, the ALJ noted that Chaddock could not have been publicly funded under California law. Chaddock's application for California Department of Education certification had been rejected in 2006 and no new application was pending. California regulations require that out-of-state residential placements be certified by the CDE to provide AB3632 services, and an ALJ cannot order placement in a non-certified school.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's request for placement at Chaddock, funded by the District and DMH, was denied.
2. The District and DMH prevailed on the sole issue in the case.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A diagnosis must be documented by a qualified professional. The parent's belief that Student had RAD was not enough — and the family's therapist who suggested it never testified or submitted a formal report. If you believe your child has a specific diagnosis that affects their placement, get it in writing from a licensed clinician and bring that professional to the IEP or hearing.

2. STAR scores alone will not win a placement argument. The ALJ made clear that standardized test scores are just one data point. Districts can and will point to grades, classroom performance, and teacher observations to show progress. Parents who want to challenge academic progress need multiple forms of evidence, not just one test.

3. Out-of-state placements face an extra legal hurdle in California. California law requires that any out-of-state residential program be certified by the California Department of Education before public funds can pay for it. If your preferred program isn't CDE-certified, an ALJ cannot order the District to pay for it — even if the program might be better for your child.

4. Progress doesn't have to be perfect — it has to be meaningful. The legal standard is that an IEP be "reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit," not that it maximize a student's potential. Student had not yet reunited with her family, but the ALJ found that steady therapeutic and academic gains were sufficient. Parents should understand this standard when evaluating whether to challenge a placement.