District Must Provide Transportation When Family Circumstances Change Mid-Year

What Happened

Student is an eight-year-old boy with severe autism who attends a Mild/Moderate Special Day Class in Garden Grove Unified School District. His disabilities include very limited speech, poor attention and focus, gross motor delays, social-emotional delays, a risk of elopement, and a need for constant supervision. The district had provided bus transportation in earlier years, and everyone agreed — including the district's own assistant superintendent — that transportation was a required related service given Student's unique needs.

Starting with the 2007-2008 school year, Student's parents chose to drive him to school at Hill Elementary themselves. Their reason was practical and understandable: they wanted to stay in close daily communication with Student's teachers and service providers to monitor his progress. For nearly two years, they voluntarily transported Student, occasionally raising the transportation issue at IEP meetings but never making a firm, formal request. That changed at the March 27, 2009 IEP meeting, when parents informed the team that Mother's advanced pregnancy and the imminent birth of a second child made it impossible for her to continue driving Student to school. They formally requested that the district resume providing bus transportation. Instead of simply resuming the service, the district told parents they would only get transportation if they agreed to move Student from Hill Elementary to Anthony Elementary — his "home school" for the program — for the following year. Parents refused because they believed Student had thrived at Hill and would regress with a school change.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ split the decision into three time periods. For the 2007-2008 school year and most of the 2008-2009 school year, the district prevailed. The evidence showed that parents had consistently chosen to drive Student themselves to stay connected with his teachers, and had even rescinded a transportation request mid-meeting in April 2008. Because the preference to transport was the parents' own voluntary choice — as the father himself acknowledged in a later email — the district was not denying FAPE by not pushing transportation services on a family that didn't want them.

However, from March 27, 2009 through the end of the 2008-2009 school year, the district did deny Student a FAPE. Once parents clearly notified the district that their circumstances had changed and they could no longer provide transportation, the district had a legal obligation to resume providing it. The district's IEP for the 2008-2009 year had placed Student at Hill Elementary, and that placement carried with it a duty to provide transportation when needed. The district's response — conditioning transportation on a school change — was improper. The ALJ found that the district should have simply resumed bus service for the remainder of the school year.

For the 2009-2010 school year, the district prevailed again. The parents had signed an Intra-District Transfer Agreement on March 31, 2009, which explicitly required them to provide transportation as a condition of Student attending Hill Elementary by parental choice. The ALJ found this agreement enforceable. Even though the father said he signed it in a panic without fully reading it, the district had offered to rescind it — which would have resulted in transportation to Anthony Elementary — and the parents declined because they wanted Student to stay at Hill.

What Was Ordered

1. The district was found to have denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide transportation from March 27, 2009 through the end of the 2008-2009 school year.
2. The district was ordered to reimburse parents $254.10 for mileage costs (77 driving trips × 6 miles roundtrip × $0.55/mile IRS rate).
3. The district was ordered to reimburse parents an additional $250 for babysitter and transportation aide costs incurred during the same period, for a total reimbursement of $504.
4. All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for the 2007-2008 school year, the current school year, lost wages, and driving to outside providers — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Voluntarily driving your child to school does not waive transportation rights permanently. If you choose to provide transportation yourself for convenience or to stay close to your child's program, that is your right — but you can formally request transportation at any time when circumstances change. The district must respond to a clear, formal request.

2. Tell the district in writing when your circumstances change. The turning point in this case was the March 2009 IEP where parents clearly stated that Mother's pregnancy made it impossible to continue driving. The ALJ found the district's obligation to provide transportation began at that moment. A written notice or IEP statement makes your changed circumstances part of the official record.

3. Read any transfer agreement carefully before signing — especially the transportation clause. The Intra-District Transfer Agreement the father signed required parents to provide transportation as a condition of the school-of-choice placement. That single clause determined the outcome for the entire 2009-2010 school year. If you are asked to sign any district form during or after an IEP dispute, take time to read it or have an advocate review it first.

4. A district cannot condition a required related service on your agreement to change schools. The ALJ found it improper for the district to tell parents: "We'll provide transportation only if you move your child to Anthony." If transportation is a required related service, the district must provide it based on the student's needs — not as a bargaining chip to influence placement decisions.