District Wins: Hard-of-Hearing Student Not Entitled to CART Services in IEP

A parent filed a due process complaint against Tustin Unified School District demanding CART (real-time captioning) services for her hard-of-hearing high school daughter. The ALJ found that the district's IEP was appropriate without CART, that the district had properly considered the request, and that the parent's refusal to consent to an assessment blocked the district from fully evaluating the need. All of the student's claims were denied.

What Happened

Student is a hard-of-hearing teenager who uses a cochlear implant in her right ear and a hearing aid in her left ear. Her chosen way of communicating is spoken English, and she had attended general education classes in Tustin Unified School District since kindergarten. She had a strong academic record — earning mostly A's and B's throughout middle school, including honors courses — and received auditory-verbal therapy (AVT) funded by the district. Despite missing some sounds in noisy environments and having difficulty with certain word endings, she consistently performed well in class.

When Student was preparing to enter high school, her Parent requested that the district provide CART services (a system where a trained captionist transcribes spoken words in real time onto a screen the student can read) in all four of Student's academic classes. The district did not immediately agree. Instead, it asked for Parent's consent to conduct an assessment to evaluate whether CART or other tools like TypeWell or an improved FM system would best serve Student's needs in the high school setting. Parent declined to consent to the assessment for many months. Parent then filed a due process complaint arguing that the district had: (1) failed to assess Student's need for CART, (2) failed to properly consider the CART request when developing Student's IEP, and (3) denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by not including CART in her IEP.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all three issues.

On the question of assessment, the ALJ found that the district had conducted a thorough triennial evaluation covering academics, cognition, speech-language, and auditory skills. Because Student was performing well and teachers reported no significant access barriers, there was no obligation to conduct a separate CART-specific assessment before the June 2009 IEP. Moreover, when the district did propose such an assessment for the October 2009 IEP, Parent refused to consent — and, the ALJ held, a parent cannot complain that the district failed to perform an assessment they would not allow to happen.

On the procedural question of whether the district properly considered the CART request, the ALJ found that it did. IEP teams are required under both federal and California law to consider communication access options for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, including assistive technology. The team reviewed the triennial assessment, heard from Parent, reviewed a recommendation for CART from Student's long-time AVT therapist, discussed the FM system and real-time transcription options, and proposed a trial of TypeWell. The ALJ concluded this satisfied the district's duty to consider communication access — even though the team ultimately did not include CART in the IEP.

On the substantive FAPE question, the ALJ applied the federal "educational benefit" standard from the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Rowley decision: an IEP must be reasonably calculated to allow the student to receive educational benefit, but it does not have to maximize the student's potential or give parents their preferred service. The ALJ found that Student was passing all her classes, succeeding in two honors courses, participating actively, and transitioning smoothly to high school. While she did not hear every word spoken in class, the evidence showed she was accessing the curriculum well enough to make meaningful progress. The ALJ found that CART would have been a "potential-maximizing" service — beneficial, but not legally required.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district was found to have provided an appropriate IEP without CART services.
No compensatory education, services, or reimbursement was awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

The law does not require the "best" service — only an "appropriate" one. Federal and California law set a floor, not a ceiling. Even if CART would genuinely help your child more than what the district is offering, that alone is not enough to win a due process hearing. You must show that what the district offers fails to provide meaningful educational benefit — not just that something better exists.
Refusing an assessment can hurt your case. When the district offers to evaluate your child's need for a specific service and you decline, courts and ALJs will hold that against you. If you believe your child needs CART or another accommodation, cooperating with the district's assessment process — even if you disagree with their conclusions — strengthens your legal position.
California law gives extra protections to deaf and hard-of-hearing students, but those protections have limits. California requires IEP teams to specifically discuss communication access and consider services consistent with anti-discrimination law. However, the ALJ found these requirements govern what the team must consider, not what it must ultimately provide. They do not override the federal educational benefit standard.
Strong grades can work against you in a due process hearing. When a student is succeeding academically, it is very difficult to prove that the district's program is inadequate. If your child is passing classes and advancing grades, be prepared to show concrete evidence — beyond good intentions — of how the missing service would address a specific, documented educational need.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all three issues.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district was found to have provided an appropriate IEP without CART services.
No compensatory education, services, or reimbursement was awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

The law does not require the "best" service — only an "appropriate" one. Federal and California law set a floor, not a ceiling. Even if CART would genuinely help your child more than what the district is offering, that alone is not enough to win a due process hearing. You must show that what the district offers fails to provide meaningful educational benefit — not just that something better exists.
Refusing an assessment can hurt your case. When the district offers to evaluate your child's need for a specific service and you decline, courts and ALJs will hold that against you. If you believe your child needs CART or another accommodation, cooperating with the district's assessment process — even if you disagree with their conclusions — strengthens your legal position.
California law gives extra protections to deaf and hard-of-hearing students, but those protections have limits. California requires IEP teams to specifically discuss communication access and consider services consistent with anti-discrimination law. However, the ALJ found these requirements govern what the team must consider, not what it must ultimately provide. They do not override the federal educational benefit standard.
Strong grades can work against you in a due process hearing. When a student is succeeding academically, it is very difficult to prove that the district's program is inadequate. If your child is passing classes and advancing grades, be prepared to show concrete evidence — beyond good intentions — of how the missing service would address a specific, documented educational need.