District and County Mental Health Agency Denied FAPE by Refusing RTC Placement After AB 3632 Veto

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old eighth grader with bipolar disorder who had been eligible for special education under the "Other Health Impairment" (OHI) category. Over the course of several years, Student's condition worsened dramatically — he experienced violent rages at home, severe medication side effects that caused him to sleep 12 to 14 hours a day, and chronic school absences. In early 2010, Parent requested that the district refer Student to the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (LACDMH) for an AB 3632 mental health assessment. By September 2010, LACDMH's assessor had concluded that Student needed placement in a residential treatment center (RTC) to benefit from his education — but noted that RTC placement required the district to first reclassify Student's eligibility category to Emotional Disturbance (ED).

Everything was on track until October 8, 2010, when the Governor vetoed state funding for AB 3632 mental health services. LACDMH responded by refusing to attend any new IEP meetings, including two scheduled specifically to reclassify Student's eligibility and implement the RTC recommendation. Torrance Unified convened those meetings, knew why LACDMH was refusing to show up, and yet never told Parent that the district itself was legally required to step in and provide mental health services when the county refused. Student was left in a home hospital program — five hours of instruction per week with a teacher — which everyone agreed was minimally beneficial given the severity of his mental health needs. It was not until a federal court lawsuit and a court order that LACDMH returned to the table on November 17, 2010, and finally offered the RTC placement.

What the District Did Wrong

The district failed to disclose its legal obligation to parents. Under California law, when a county mental health agency refuses to provide required mental health services, the school district must step in as the provider of last resort. Torrance Unified's special education director knew LACDMH was refusing to attend IEP meetings in the wake of the Governor's veto, but the district never told Parent about this legal backstop obligation — not at the October 18 meeting, not at the October 29 meeting, and not at any point before Parent filed for due process.

The district did not take action to provide services itself. Despite knowing LACDMH was refusing to participate, the district did not hire or contract with qualified mental health professionals to review the AB 3632 assessment and provide Student with services. Instead, district representatives gave Parent vague referrals to county programs and the SELPA director — options the district already knew had been shut down by the veto.

LACDMH's refusal to attend IEP meetings was unjustified. LACDMH knew the October 18 and October 29 meetings were scheduled specifically to change Student's eligibility and implement the RTC recommendation it had itself made. The ALJ found LACDMH's refusal to attend was based solely on a blanket policy of not participating in IEPs after the veto — not on any legitimate legal basis. Under California law, LACDMH remained required to attend IEP meetings and make mental health recommendations regardless of funding disputes.

What Was Ordered

1. Torrance Unified, LACDMH, and the California Department of Mental Health are jointly and severally responsible for the remedy — meaning any one of them can be required to pay the full amount.
2. Student is awarded 110 hours of compensatory education at a private learning center (such as Sylvan Learning Center or Mathnasium), at a rate not to exceed $100 per hour.
3. The 110 hours must be used at Parent's discretion, outside of school hours, after Student is discharged from the RTC.
4. Student must use all 110 hours within two years of discharge from the RTC, or the award is forfeited.
5. Student's request for a wraparound mental health services award (as recommended by the expert witness) was denied as too speculative, because Student's specific mental health needs upon RTC discharge could not yet be determined.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. When a county mental health agency refuses to act, the school district must step in. California law makes the school district the provider of last resort for mental health services required by a student's IEP. If your county mental health agency says it won't participate — for any reason, including a funding dispute — your district cannot simply wait. It must provide or fund the services itself and seek reimbursement later. Demand this in writing.

2. Your district has a duty to tell you about its legal obligations. The ALJ found that the district's failure to inform Parent of this backup responsibility was itself a procedural violation that denied Parent a meaningful role in decision-making. If your district is deflecting responsibility by pointing to another agency, ask specifically whether the district has its own legal obligation to provide the services at issue.

3. A county mental health agency cannot use a budget dispute as an excuse to skip IEP meetings. LACDMH's blanket policy of refusing to attend any new IEP meetings after the Governor's veto was found to be an unjustified procedural violation. Mental health agencies required to participate in IEP teams under AB 3632 cannot simply opt out based on funding uncertainty. If your county mental health provider refuses to attend, document it — that refusal can be the basis for a FAPE claim.

4. Compensatory education must be tied to real lost benefit, not just lost days. The ALJ calculated the remedy based on the actual school days and instructional hours Student lost during the 30-day denial period — 110 hours. The request for a broader wraparound mental health services award was denied because no one could yet say exactly what Student would need after RTC discharge. When seeking compensatory education, ground your request in documented, specific lost services rather than speculative future needs.