LAUSD Failed to Provide Assigned Adult Assistant to Preschooler With Rare Chromosome Disorder

A preschool student with a rare chromosome deletion syndrome, mental retardation, and visual impairment was twice lost on campus when her assigned adult assistant was improperly pulled from the classroom. The ALJ found that LAUSD materially failed to implement the November 2008 IEP by not keeping an assigned additional adult assistant with the student, and that the April 2009 annual IEP compounded the problem by pretending existing staff was sufficient. The student was awarded compensatory speech-language services and an assigned adult assistant through the end of ESY 2010.

What Happened

Student was a four-and-a-half-year-old girl with Chromosome 18q minus deletion syndrome — a rare genetic condition causing developmental delay, low muscle tone, visual impairment, speech delays, and extremely small stature. She was enrolled in a preschool special education class at LAUSD's Haskell Elementary School. Because of her fragility, unsteady gait, tendency to wander, and inability to call out for help when in danger, her teacher and parent were deeply concerned about her safety and ability to access the curriculum without reliable adult support.

After a Functional Behavior Assessment in October 2008 confirmed that Student needed a consistently present adult assistant who could not be pulled away to serve other classrooms, the district held an amendment IEP in November 2008 and agreed to assign a specific adult assistant (an "Additional Adult Assistant assigned to Student," or AAA) to be with Student as her priority. The problem was that this commitment was repeatedly ignored in practice: the assigned assistant was pulled from the classroom one to two times per week, sometimes for the entire session. Twice during the school year, Student wandered away from class entirely when her assigned assistant was absent — once being found in the upper-grade campus by a stranger, and once being found next to a trash bin after a lengthy search, having fallen and been unable to call for help.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district actually did make an appropriate offer in the November 2008 amendment IEP — it promised to assign a specific adult assistant to Student whose primary responsibility would be Student's safety and curriculum access, and who could not be pulled away to serve elsewhere. On that narrow question, the parent did not prevail.

However, the ALJ found that the district materially failed to implement what it had promised. The assigned assistant was pulled regularly, no substitute was provided when she was absent, and the result was two serious safety incidents where Student was completely lost on campus. This failure was not a minor paperwork gap — it was a significant, ongoing breakdown in a service specifically designed to prevent exactly what happened.

The April 2009 annual IEP made things worse. Despite knowing that Student had twice gone missing, that she still failed 9 of her 10 IEP goals, and that her teacher continued to insist the assigned assistant was essential, the district wrote into the IEP that Student's needs could be met by "existing staff." The ALJ found this directly contradicted the November 2008 IEP and the plain evidence of Student's needs, and constituted a separate denial of FAPE.

For ESY 2009, Student was placed in a different campus with approximately 16 students and only one adult assistant. When the lone assistant took any child to the restroom, the teacher was left alone with 16 children. Parent withdrew Student after three days, and Student lost an entire month of speech-language services she was entitled to receive.

What Was Ordered

The district must assign an Additional Adult Assistant specifically to Student — one who cannot be pulled from the classroom and must be replaced by a substitute when absent — through the conclusion of Extended School Year 2010.
Student is awarded 120 minutes of compensatory speech-language services to make up for services missed during ESY 2009. Parent may choose whether these are delivered by a nonpublic agency or through the district's own compensatory program.
The April 2010 annual IEP team must consider Student's adult assistance needs and determine whether an assigned AAA is still required for the 2010-11 school year.
If Parent disagrees with the 2010 annual IEP and files for due process before ESY 2010 ends, the assigned adult assistant is considered part of Student's "stay put" services and must continue during the dispute.

Why This Matters for Parents

An IEP promise must actually be kept — not just written down. This case confirms that a district cannot offer a service in an IEP and then quietly ignore it. When the district repeatedly pulled the assigned assistant despite the IEP's clear terms, that was a legal violation — even if the original offer was appropriate. If your child's IEP promises a specific support, document every time it is not delivered.
"Existing staff is sufficient" is not an acceptable substitute for a specific IEP commitment. The April 2009 IEP tried to walk back a concrete promise by claiming general classroom staff was enough. The ALJ rejected this. If a prior IEP identified a specific support as necessary, a later IEP cannot simply erase it without evidence that circumstances changed.
ESY placement changes require the same level of support as the regular school year. When Student was moved to a different ESY campus with inadequate staffing, that was a FAPE denial. Districts cannot offer ESY in name only — the placement must actually be able to deliver the IEP services your child is entitled to receive.
When your child is lost or injured due to inadequate supervision, document everything. The two incidents where Student wandered from class were central to the ALJ's finding of a material failure. Dates, times, who was present, and what happened afterward all matter. A paper trail of safety incidents strengthens a FAPE claim significantly.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district must assign an Additional Adult Assistant specifically to Student — one who cannot be pulled from the classroom and must be replaced by a substitute when absent — through the conclusion of Extended School Year 2010.
Student is awarded 120 minutes of compensatory speech-language services to make up for services missed during ESY 2009. Parent may choose whether these are delivered by a nonpublic agency or through the district's own compensatory program.
The April 2010 annual IEP team must consider Student's adult assistance needs and determine whether an assigned AAA is still required for the 2010-11 school year.
If Parent disagrees with the 2010 annual IEP and files for due process before ESY 2010 ends, the assigned adult assistant is considered part of Student's "stay put" services and must continue during the dispute.

Why This Matters for Parents

An IEP promise must actually be kept — not just written down. This case confirms that a district cannot offer a service in an IEP and then quietly ignore it. When the district repeatedly pulled the assigned assistant despite the IEP's clear terms, that was a legal violation — even if the original offer was appropriate. If your child's IEP promises a specific support, document every time it is not delivered.
"Existing staff is sufficient" is not an acceptable substitute for a specific IEP commitment. The April 2009 IEP tried to walk back a concrete promise by claiming general classroom staff was enough. The ALJ rejected this. If a prior IEP identified a specific support as necessary, a later IEP cannot simply erase it without evidence that circumstances changed.
ESY placement changes require the same level of support as the regular school year. When Student was moved to a different ESY campus with inadequate staffing, that was a FAPE denial. Districts cannot offer ESY in name only — the placement must actually be able to deliver the IEP services your child is entitled to receive.
When your child is lost or injured due to inadequate supervision, document everything. The two incidents where Student wandered from class were central to the ALJ's finding of a material failure. Dates, times, who was present, and what happened afterward all matter. A paper trail of safety incidents strengthens a FAPE claim significantly.