LACOE Must Fund RTC Placement for Student in Juvenile Hall, Not LAUSD

A 16-year-old foster child with emotional disturbance was confined in Juvenile Hall and offered an out-of-state residential treatment center (RTC) placement through his IEP, but multiple agencies refused to fund or implement it. The ALJ ruled that the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) was responsible for fully implementing the IEP — including transporting and initially funding the RTC placement — while the student remained in Juvenile Hall. LACOE could not escape this responsibility by pointing to other agencies or waiting for the student's release.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old foster child who had been a dependent of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court since age two. He had lived in more than 40 foster homes and group homes and had experienced severe abuse throughout his life. Student was eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. He had been continuously confined in Juvenile Hall since October 2008.

While Student was in Juvenile Hall, LACOE convened IEP team meetings and provided educational services through the Juvenile Court School. A mental health assessment conducted under AB3632 diagnosed Student with Bipolar Disorder and recommended out-of-state residential treatment. At an April 8, 2009 IEP team meeting — which LAUSD declined to attend despite being invited — the expanded IEP team agreed that Student needed placement at an out-of-state Residential Treatment Center (RTC). LACDMH identified a specific placement at Emily Griffith Center in Colorado. However, LACOE refused to implement the placement, insisting it was not responsible for funding or arranging the RTC because that responsibility would shift to LAUSD the moment Student was released from Juvenile Hall. LAUSD, in turn, refused to participate in any placement meetings while Student remained in another district's jurisdiction. Student filed for due process to force one of the agencies to act.

What the District Did Wrong

LACOE took the position that its responsibility ended at the door of Juvenile Hall — that it was obligated to offer a FAPE while Student was physically confined there, but that implementing the IEP (including actually placing Student at the RTC) was someone else's problem. The ALJ flatly rejected this argument. Under California law, when a student with a disability attends a Juvenile Court School, the county office of education is responsible for developing and implementing a special education program for that child. LACOE could not offer an IEP placement and then refuse to carry it out.

The ALJ also found that LACOE's responsibility included coordinating with other agencies, signing the educational components of the RTC contract, arranging transportation, and initially funding the placement — even if LACOE could later seek reimbursement from the district where Student's guardian resided. Critically, the fact that Student had not yet been physically released from Juvenile Hall meant that LACOE remained the responsible agency. LACOE could not transfer its obligations to LAUSD before that release actually happened. Meanwhile, LAUSD's blanket policy of refusing to attend placement meetings for students in other districts before their return was also problematic, leaving Student stranded between agencies while sitting in Juvenile Hall without the intensive therapy all parties agreed he needed.

What Was Ordered

LACOE shall immediately implement Student's April 8, 2009 IEP by coordinating and funding the educational and related services component of his placement at the agreed-upon RTC.
LACOE is responsible for arranging transportation to the RTC to the extent that transportation is not otherwise funded by LACDMH or another agency.
LACDMH was dismissed without prejudice due to a pending settlement with that agency.
The ALJ declined to rule on whether LAUSD or CDE would be responsible after Student's release from Juvenile Hall, finding that question was not ripe for decision because Student had not yet been released.

Why This Matters for Parents

The agency currently serving your child cannot walk away from IEP implementation just because another agency might take over later. LACOE argued it only had to "offer" the placement, not pay for it. The ALJ made clear that offering a placement in an IEP creates a legal obligation to actually carry it out — including arranging and initially funding it — especially when the student is still in that agency's jurisdiction.
If your child is in Juvenile Hall, the County Office of Education is responsible for their FAPE — not the home school district. California law is specific: when a student attends a Juvenile Court School, normal residency rules don't apply. The county office of education where the juvenile hall is located must provide services. This means parents and advocates should direct their demands to the county office, not the home district, while the student remains confined.
Agencies cannot use inter-agency finger-pointing to delay services for your child. In this case, LACOE pointed to LAUSD, LAUSD pointed back at LACOE, and Student sat in Juvenile Hall without his needed treatment. The ALJ made clear that one agency must be held responsible and must act, even if reimbursement questions are sorted out later between agencies.
An IEP team meeting held without your child's educational decision-maker is a serious problem. Student's responsible adult (Mr. Andres) was not included in the April 8, 2009 IEP team meeting. This created uncertainty about who could legally consent to the placement and contributed to months of delay. Always confirm that the person holding educational rights is invited to and participates in every IEP meeting.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

LACOE shall immediately implement Student's April 8, 2009 IEP by coordinating and funding the educational and related services component of his placement at the agreed-upon RTC.
LACOE is responsible for arranging transportation to the RTC to the extent that transportation is not otherwise funded by LACDMH or another agency.
LACDMH was dismissed without prejudice due to a pending settlement with that agency.
The ALJ declined to rule on whether LAUSD or CDE would be responsible after Student's release from Juvenile Hall, finding that question was not ripe for decision because Student had not yet been released.

Why This Matters for Parents

The agency currently serving your child cannot walk away from IEP implementation just because another agency might take over later. LACOE argued it only had to "offer" the placement, not pay for it. The ALJ made clear that offering a placement in an IEP creates a legal obligation to actually carry it out — including arranging and initially funding it — especially when the student is still in that agency's jurisdiction.
If your child is in Juvenile Hall, the County Office of Education is responsible for their FAPE — not the home school district. California law is specific: when a student attends a Juvenile Court School, normal residency rules don't apply. The county office of education where the juvenile hall is located must provide services. This means parents and advocates should direct their demands to the county office, not the home district, while the student remains confined.
Agencies cannot use inter-agency finger-pointing to delay services for your child. In this case, LACOE pointed to LAUSD, LAUSD pointed back at LACOE, and Student sat in Juvenile Hall without his needed treatment. The ALJ made clear that one agency must be held responsible and must act, even if reimbursement questions are sorted out later between agencies.
An IEP team meeting held without your child's educational decision-maker is a serious problem. Student's responsible adult (Mr. Andres) was not included in the April 8, 2009 IEP team meeting. This created uncertainty about who could legally consent to the placement and contributed to months of delay. Always confirm that the person holding educational rights is invited to and participates in every IEP meeting.