LAUSD Must Provide Special Education to Incarcerated 19-Year-Old in County Jail

A 19-year-old with a learning disability and speech impairment was transferred from juvenile hall to the Los Angeles County Jail at age 18 and received zero special education for over a year. LAUSD argued it was not responsible for his education, but the ALJ found LAUSD was the legally responsible district based on where his mother lived. The District was ordered to provide intensive one-to-one instruction, speech-language therapy, and counseling, plus compensatory education for the year of lost services.

What Happened

Student is a 19-year-old man who has received special education since approximately second grade, qualifying under the categories of specific learning disability and speech-language impairment. He also has an auditory processing disorder and reads and does math significantly below grade level. Student had an active IEP when he was 17, developed while he was in juvenile hall through the Los Angeles County Office of Education. That IEP called for special day class instruction, speech-language therapy, counseling, and behavior management services. In June 2008, when Student turned 18, he was transferred from the juvenile facility to the Los Angeles County Jail. From that moment forward, he received absolutely no special education or related services.

Student's mother, who lived in Bell, California — within LAUSD's boundaries — had been involved in his education throughout. After Student's attorney sent a letter to LAUSD in February 2009 formally requesting special education services, the District wrote back saying it was "reviewing the request" and then went silent. Student filed a due process complaint in June 2009. His expert, a licensed neuropsychologist, assessed Student in jail in July 2009 and found that his academic skills had regressed due to the year-plus without any education. LAUSD disputed that it was even the responsible school district, arguing that other agencies bore responsibility for educating incarcerated adults.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that LAUSD was unquestionably the legally responsible district under California Education Code section 56041, which provides that the last district of residence of a student's parent becomes and remains responsible for special education services for students ages 18 to 22. Because Student's mother lived within LAUSD's boundaries before, during, and after his incarceration — and Student himself would return to live there if released — LAUSD could not dodge responsibility simply because Student was in jail.

LAUSD committed four separate procedural violations, each of which the ALJ found rose to the level of a substantive denial of FAPE: (1) LAUSD never provided Student with a notice of his procedural rights after he turned 18, leaving him unaware he was entitled to special education in jail; (2) LAUSD never held a 30-day interim IEP meeting after Student was transferred to the adult jail, as required by law; (3) LAUSD never held an annual IEP team meeting to review his progress or update his program; and (4) after receiving Student's written request for services in February 2009, LAUSD never provided the required prior written notice explaining why it was refusing to provide services. Beyond the procedural failures, the District simply provided nothing — no instruction, no speech-language therapy, no counseling — for more than a year after Student arrived at the jail.

What Was Ordered

LAUSD was declared the legally responsible educational agency for Student while he is incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Jail.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing three 1-hour sessions per week of one-to-one reading instruction from a credentialed special education teacher.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing three 1-hour sessions per week of one-to-one math instruction from a credentialed special education teacher.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing 90 minutes per week of speech-language therapy in three 30-minute sessions, delivered one-to-one by a licensed speech-language pathologist.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing one hour per week of individual counseling by a California-licensed mental health professional (psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or credentialed school psychologist).
As compensatory education for the year of lost services, LAUSD must provide an additional one hour per week of one-to-one math instruction, one additional hour per week of one-to-one reading instruction, and 30 additional minutes per week of speech-language therapy — all for one full year from the start date of services.
All services must continue until Student is no longer eligible, is transferred out of the jail, or a new IEP is signed or ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Special education rights do not stop at the jail door. Both federal and California law require that eligible students continue receiving special education while incarcerated in adult correctional facilities. If your child (or young adult) is incarcerated and had an IEP before age 18, they are very likely still entitled to services — and the district where you, the parent, live is typically the one responsible for providing them.
A district cannot escape responsibility by doing nothing. LAUSD argued that no IEP team had made a formal finding that Student needed services beyond age 18 — but the reason no such finding existed was that LAUSD itself had never held an IEP meeting. The ALJ rejected this circular reasoning: a district cannot use its own procedural failures to declare a student ineligible.
Send your requests in writing and keep copies. Student's attorney sent a formal written request for services in February 2009. When the District failed to respond properly, that letter became powerful evidence of the District's refusal to act. Written requests trigger specific legal obligations — including the duty to send a detailed prior written notice explaining any denial.
Compensatory education can make up for lost time. When a district fails to provide required services, an ALJ can order extra services — on top of the regular program — to compensate for what was missed. There is no requirement that it be a day-for-day match; the remedy is based on what is needed to restore educational benefit. In this case, Student received an additional full year of supplemental services because of the year he lost.
Your child's expert matters — and so does the District's silence. Student's neuropsychologist actually met with and tested Student, providing specific recommendations backed by assessment data. The District's expert never met Student and relied only on paperwork. The ALJ gave far more weight to the expert who had direct knowledge of the student's current needs, a reminder that thorough independent evaluations are a powerful tool in due process.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

LAUSD was declared the legally responsible educational agency for Student while he is incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Jail.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing three 1-hour sessions per week of one-to-one reading instruction from a credentialed special education teacher.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing three 1-hour sessions per week of one-to-one math instruction from a credentialed special education teacher.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing 90 minutes per week of speech-language therapy in three 30-minute sessions, delivered one-to-one by a licensed speech-language pathologist.
Within 60 days, LAUSD must begin providing one hour per week of individual counseling by a California-licensed mental health professional (psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or credentialed school psychologist).
As compensatory education for the year of lost services, LAUSD must provide an additional one hour per week of one-to-one math instruction, one additional hour per week of one-to-one reading instruction, and 30 additional minutes per week of speech-language therapy — all for one full year from the start date of services.
All services must continue until Student is no longer eligible, is transferred out of the jail, or a new IEP is signed or ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Special education rights do not stop at the jail door. Both federal and California law require that eligible students continue receiving special education while incarcerated in adult correctional facilities. If your child (or young adult) is incarcerated and had an IEP before age 18, they are very likely still entitled to services — and the district where you, the parent, live is typically the one responsible for providing them.
A district cannot escape responsibility by doing nothing. LAUSD argued that no IEP team had made a formal finding that Student needed services beyond age 18 — but the reason no such finding existed was that LAUSD itself had never held an IEP meeting. The ALJ rejected this circular reasoning: a district cannot use its own procedural failures to declare a student ineligible.
Send your requests in writing and keep copies. Student's attorney sent a formal written request for services in February 2009. When the District failed to respond properly, that letter became powerful evidence of the District's refusal to act. Written requests trigger specific legal obligations — including the duty to send a detailed prior written notice explaining any denial.
Compensatory education can make up for lost time. When a district fails to provide required services, an ALJ can order extra services — on top of the regular program — to compensate for what was missed. There is no requirement that it be a day-for-day match; the remedy is based on what is needed to restore educational benefit. In this case, Student received an additional full year of supplemental services because of the year he lost.
Your child's expert matters — and so does the District's silence. Student's neuropsychologist actually met with and tested Student, providing specific recommendations backed by assessment data. The District's expert never met Student and relied only on paperwork. The ALJ gave far more weight to the expert who had direct knowledge of the student's current needs, a reminder that thorough independent evaluations are a powerful tool in due process.