Parent Loses: Refusing District-Assigned Home Instruction Teacher Denied Student Services

A parent filed for due process after her medically fragile son stopped receiving home instruction in the 2009-2010 school year. The ALJ found that the district had offered services but the parent refused them because she wanted Student's previous teacher reassigned — and also failed to provide the required medical referral form. The district prevailed on all issues and no compensatory education was awarded.

What Happened

Student is an eight-year-old boy with multiple serious medical conditions, including congenital neuroblastoma, leukodystrophy, and epilepsy, as well as orthopedic disabilities and an intellectual disability. Because of his compromised immune system and medical fragility, Student received home instruction through the district's Carlson Home Instructional Program rather than attending a school campus. He had been receiving home instruction from the same teacher since December 2008, and Parent believed that consistency with this teacher was essential to Student's progress given his need for routine and structure.

When the 2009-2010 school year began, the district attempted to assign a different home instruction teacher — one with higher contractual priority under the teachers' union agreement. Parent refused the new teacher's services and insisted that Student's original teacher be reassigned. Around the same time, Parent had not provided a current, complete medical referral form authorizing home instruction for the new school year, as required by state regulation. The third medical referral was eventually submitted in March 2010 — the day after it had already expired. Because of Parent's refusal of services and the missing referral, Student received no special education services from July 30, 2009 onward.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district and denied all of Student's requests for relief.

On the medical referral: State regulations require that a student receiving home instruction have a current medical referral from their physician that includes a projected date for return to a school campus. Parent failed to provide this for the 2009-2010 school year. The physician's letter presented at hearing did not establish that the referral was ever sent to the district before it expired. The ALJ found that providing the referral was Parent's responsibility, and without it, the district was not obligated to provide home instruction.

On the teacher assignment: Even setting aside the referral issue, the ALJ found that the district's offer to provide a different qualified home instruction teacher was appropriate. Districts have discretion over which staff they assign to implement IEPs — parents do not have the right to demand a specific teacher. The ALJ noted that Student had adjusted to his previous teacher within "a couple of weeks" and that no evidence was presented showing the assigned teacher was unqualified or unable to meet Student's needs.

On FAPE and compensatory education: Because the district offered services and Parent refused them, the ALJ found no denial of FAPE. When a parent's refusal to cooperate is the reason services were not delivered, the district is generally not held responsible. With no FAPE denial established, there was no basis to award compensatory education.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district prevailed on all issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You must keep medical documentation current and complete. If your child receives home instruction, state law requires a physician's referral with a projected return-to-school date. Letting that paperwork lapse — even by one day — can give the district grounds to pause services and undermine your legal claims. Stay on top of renewal deadlines and confirm the district received the documents.
Parents do not have the right to choose which teacher implements the IEP. Under California and federal law, districts control staffing decisions. Even when your child genuinely needs consistency and routine, refusing a qualified substitute teacher because you prefer someone else can be treated as non-cooperation — and courts and ALJs will typically side with the district in that situation.
Refusing services breaks the legal chain. If your child is not receiving services, it matters enormously why. When the gap in services is caused by a parent's refusal rather than the district's failure to offer them, a hearing officer will not find a FAPE denial. Document every offer the district makes and think carefully before declining services — even imperfect services may be better than none, both for your child and for your legal position.
Parental non-cooperation is a real legal risk. The IDEA is built on cooperation between parents and schools. When a parent takes a "my way or the highway" approach — insisting on a specific teacher, withholding paperwork, or refusing offered services — hearing officers may find that the district met its obligations regardless of the outcome for the student. If you have serious concerns about a teacher or a service, address them through the IEP team process rather than outright refusal.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district and denied all of Student's requests for relief.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district prevailed on all issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You must keep medical documentation current and complete. If your child receives home instruction, state law requires a physician's referral with a projected return-to-school date. Letting that paperwork lapse — even by one day — can give the district grounds to pause services and undermine your legal claims. Stay on top of renewal deadlines and confirm the district received the documents.
Parents do not have the right to choose which teacher implements the IEP. Under California and federal law, districts control staffing decisions. Even when your child genuinely needs consistency and routine, refusing a qualified substitute teacher because you prefer someone else can be treated as non-cooperation — and courts and ALJs will typically side with the district in that situation.
Refusing services breaks the legal chain. If your child is not receiving services, it matters enormously why. When the gap in services is caused by a parent's refusal rather than the district's failure to offer them, a hearing officer will not find a FAPE denial. Document every offer the district makes and think carefully before declining services — even imperfect services may be better than none, both for your child and for your legal position.
Parental non-cooperation is a real legal risk. The IDEA is built on cooperation between parents and schools. When a parent takes a "my way or the highway" approach — insisting on a specific teacher, withholding paperwork, or refusing offered services — hearing officers may find that the district met its obligations regardless of the outcome for the student. If you have serious concerns about a teacher or a service, address them through the IEP team process rather than outright refusal.