LACOE and LAUSD Both Held Responsible for Student's Residential Treatment Placement

What Happened

Student was a young woman with a learning disability who had run away from home at age 13 and lived on the streets for approximately five years. Before running away, she had been enrolled in LAUSD. She was eventually detained in Los Angeles County Juvenile Hall, where she turned 18. While there, the LA County Department of Mental Health assessed her and found she also had an emotional disturbance. In January 2010, the assessor recommended she be placed in a residential treatment center (RTC). At a February 2010 IEP meeting, the full IEP team — including LACOE, which ran the Juvenile Hall school — agreed that Student needed an RTC placement directly upon her release. A specific RTC in Texas, Devereux, was later identified and accepted Student.

Despite agreeing Student needed an RTC, LACOE refused to take any concrete steps to arrange or fund the placement throughout the spring of 2010. LACOE argued it only had to act once Student was released from Juvenile Hall — and that at that point, a different agency would be responsible anyway. Student filed for a due process hearing in March 2010. The case became complicated when a federal district court got involved and ordered the matter consolidated with a second case Student had filed naming LACOE, LAUSD, and the California Department of Education (CDE) as respondents. The ALJ ultimately issued a consolidated decision sorting out which agency owed Student a FAPE at each point in time.

What the District Did Wrong

LACOE failed to implement the IEP team's RTC recommendation for months, despite having a clear legal duty to do so. Under California law, LACOE was the responsible LEA for Student while she was detained in Juvenile Hall — full stop. There is nothing in IDEA that allows an LEA to delay implementing a FAPE because a different agency might take over in the future. LACOE's argument that it could simply wait until Student was released was rejected. The ALJ found LACOE had a duty, as of February 24, 2010, to coordinate with agencies, sign contracts, arrange funding, and organize transportation — all while Student was still incarcerated — even if it meant spending money it might later recover from another agency.

LAUSD also attempted to avoid responsibility after Student was released. It argued that because Student's rights transferred to her at age 18, the LEA should be based on Student's residency, not her mother's. The ALJ rejected this, finding Education Code section 56041 unambiguous: for a non-conserved student over 18, the responsible LEA is the last district where the parent resided before the student turned 18, until the parent moves. Because Student's mother had continuously lived within LAUSD's service area, LAUSD was the LEA as of July 15, 2010, when Student left Juvenile Hall. LAUSD's further argument — that Student had to formally "enroll" before LAUSD's duty was triggered — was also rejected. The ALJ found no statutory basis for a formal enrollment requirement under these facts. CDE was found to have no direct responsibility to provide FAPE, as LACOE and LAUSD were the responsible LEAs throughout.

What Was Ordered

1. LACOE was responsible for providing Student a FAPE — including the RTC placement, transportation, and coordination between agencies — from the February 24, 2010 IEP through July 15, 2010, when Student left Juvenile Hall.
2. LAUSD became responsible for providing Student a FAPE beginning July 15, 2010, the date Student was transported to Devereux in Texas. LAUSD was ordered to conduct Student's IEP team meetings and fund all non-mental-health services under the RTC placement going forward, until circumstances changed (such as the mother moving or Student's placement changing).
3. CDE was found to have no responsibility to provide Student a FAPE at any relevant time.
4. LACOE was directed to use the state administrative reimbursement process under Government Code section 7585 if it wanted to recover costs from LAUSD — not through the due process system.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. An LEA cannot delay implementing an IEP recommendation just because it expects another agency to take over. If your child's IEP team agrees a placement is needed, the current LEA must act immediately — it cannot wait for a future handoff. Any financial disputes between agencies must be resolved separately, and your child must receive services in the meantime.

2. For students over 18 who are not conserved, the responsible school district is still based on where the parent lives — not the student. Under California law (Ed. Code § 56041), the last district where a parent lived before the student turned 18 remains responsible unless the parent moves. A student does not need to formally re-enroll to trigger that district's duty.

3. Agencies cannot use IDEA due process hearings to fight each other over funding. California law prohibits school districts and agencies from filing due process claims against one another. If agencies disagree about who pays, there is a separate state administrative process for that — and your child must continue receiving services while that dispute plays out.

4. If your child is incarcerated in Juvenile Hall and has special education needs, the County Office of Education is responsible for their FAPE — including following through on IEP team recommendations for placements outside the hall. Incarceration does not reduce a student's rights under IDEA.