County Mental Health Agency Denied FAPE by Ignoring Key Records in Mental Health Assessment

What Happened

Student is a 16-year-old girl who has received special education services since 2000, originally qualifying under Specific Learning Disability and Other Health Impairment due to ADHD. Over the years, her needs became increasingly complex — she had significant emotional and behavioral difficulties, sensory integration problems, language delays, and a history of psychiatric treatment dating back to preschool. After graduating from a non-public school in 2008, her parents enrolled her in a residential boarding school in Illinois. Her mental health deteriorated rapidly there, leading to a 10-week psychiatric hospitalization in Wisconsin, followed by a return home. In 2009, the IEP team changed her eligibility category to Emotional Disturbance and referred her to Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) for an AB3632 mental health assessment to determine what mental health services she needed.

Parents believed Student required placement in a Residential Treatment Center (RTC) and provided OCHCA with extensive medical, psychiatric, and educational records to support that conclusion. OCHCA's assessor instead recommended outpatient therapy and supported a placement at the local high school's ED program. Parents disagreed, unilaterally placed Student in two out-of-state facilities (including a diagnostic center and ultimately a residential treatment facility in Utah called Waterfall Academy), and sought reimbursement. The District settled its portion of the case on the first day of hearing, leaving OCHCA as the sole respondent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that OCHCA's AB3632 mental health assessment was procedurally and substantively deficient, and that this deficiency denied Student a FAPE. The assessor, Dr. Farzan, primarily relied on a 2006 AB3632 assessment report rather than current records, even though three years had passed, Student had gone through puberty, her medications had changed significantly, and she had experienced a severe psychiatric crisis and hospitalization. Although Dr. Farzan testified she had reviewed the psychiatric hospital's discharge report (the Rogers Report), that report was never referenced in her written assessment — and its key findings, including a recommendation for a highly structured treatment environment, were entirely omitted.

Dr. Farzan also failed to contact Student's long-time private psychiatrist, Dr. Soliman, or obtain his records, even though she knew he had been treating Student for years. She minimized behavioral ratings from Student's school clinician at Brehm — who had rated Student's behaviors as clinically severe — and excluded his observation that Student needed a small facility with significant emotional supports. When the IEP team directed Dr. Farzan to prepare an amended report after Student's crisis at a second RTC, no written amended report was ever produced. The ALJ found that Dr. Farzan selectively emphasized information that supported her prior conclusion (outpatient therapy) while ignoring substantial contrary evidence. This left the IEP team without an accurate picture of Student's needs and prevented meaningful consideration of RTC placement. The ALJ concluded that OCHCA's failures met all three legal criteria for a denial of FAPE: they impeded Student's right to FAPE, impeded parental participation, and caused a deprivation of educational benefit.

However, parents did not prevail on all relief requested. The ALJ denied reimbursement for the "safe house" interim placement and the psychiatric diagnostic facility (Aspen), because those expenses occurred before OCHCA's assessment was even presented to the IEP team and were emergency responses to crisis — not a reaction to OCHCA's denial of FAPE. The ALJ also denied prospective placement at Waterfall Academy, because California law requires the IEP team (not the ALJ) to determine appropriate placement, and because Waterfall is a for-profit facility, which is not permissible for publicly funded out-of-state residential placement under California law.

What Was Ordered

1. OCHCA was found to have denied Student a FAPE through an inadequate AB3632 mental health assessment.
2. OCHCA was ordered to reimburse Parents $2,500 for the Waterfall Academy admission fee.
3. OCHCA was ordered to reimburse Parents for the daily cost of residential and clinical services at Waterfall Academy (calculated at $117/day) from December 1, 2009, through the end of the 2009–2010 school year and the 2010 Extended School Year (ESY).
4. OCHCA was ordered to reimburse Parents for all airport fees incurred by Student from December 1, 2009, through the end of the 2009–2010 school year and ESY.
5. Reimbursement for the educational services portion of Waterfall tuition was denied (because parents had settled and released those claims against the District).
6. Prospective placement at Waterfall Academy was denied; the IEP team was left to determine appropriate placement going forward.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A mental health assessment that ignores current records is legally deficient. If a county mental health agency conducts an AB3632 assessment but relies on old reports and fails to contact current treating providers, that assessment may constitute a denial of FAPE — even if the assessor says they reviewed the materials. Always confirm in writing which records were actually reviewed and cited in the final report.

2. You have the right to have all relevant records considered. When you provide signed releases and detailed records from psychiatrists, hospitals, and prior placements, the assessor is expected to actually use that information. If key findings are missing from the written report, raise it at the IEP meeting and document your objection in writing.

3. Emergency placements may not be reimbursable. The ALJ distinguished between placements made in response to a crisis (which are not covered by special education law) and placements made in response to a flawed IEP offer (which may be reimbursable). If your child is in crisis and you place them somewhere immediately, that cost may not be covered even if FAPE was later denied.

4. For-profit residential facilities cannot be publicly funded under California law. Even when an out-of-state RTC is educationally appropriate, California law requires that publicly funded residential placements be in non-profit facilities. If you are considering a private RTC, verify the facility's non-profit status before assuming costs will be reimbursed.

5. Compensatory education can cover residential costs, not just tutoring. When a county mental health agency denies FAPE, the remedy can include reimbursement for the residential and clinical portion of an RTC placement — not just academic services. The ALJ allocated costs between the educational and residential/clinical components and ordered OCHCA to cover its share.