State Mental Health Agency Held Responsible for AB 3632 Services After Governor's Veto

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old eighth grader living within the Los Angeles Unified School District boundaries and eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability. Student had significant behavioral and emotional challenges — including defiance, inattention, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, difficulty regulating mood, and panic attacks — that were interfering with his ability to access the school curriculum. In March 2010, Student's legal guardian agreed to a referral to the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (LACDMH) for a mental health assessment under California's AB 3632 system, which is a state law requiring county mental health agencies to provide mental health services to students who need them as part of their IEP.

LACDMH completed its assessment in September 2010 and found Student eligible for services, recommending individual therapy, family therapy, medication assessment, and case management. An IEP meeting was scheduled for October 14, 2010, to present those findings and offer services. But on October 8, 2010 — just days before the meeting — Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the state funding for AB 3632 services and declared the county mandate "suspended." In response, LACDMH refused to attend the October 14 IEP meeting and announced it would not attend any future IEP meetings. Student went without the recommended mental health services until November 18, 2010, when a court order brought LACDMH back to the table. Student's guardian filed a due process complaint against the California Department of Mental Health (CDMH), the state-level agency, arguing it became responsible for services when the county agency walked away.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled clearly in Student's favor on the central legal question: the Governor did not have the constitutional authority to suspend the AB 3632 mandate. Under California's Constitution, only the Legislature — not the Governor — has the power to suspend a statutory mandate on local government. The Governor's line-item veto power allows him to eliminate or reduce budget appropriations, but it does not allow him to wipe out a substantive legal obligation. The ALJ relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in Harbor v. Deukmejian to explain that AB 3632 is a substantive law directing how government must act — not just a budget line — and therefore could not be vetoed away.

Because the Governor's veto message incorrectly told county mental health agencies they no longer had to perform AB 3632 duties, and because CDMH then issued its own guidance confirming that incorrect interpretation, the ALJ found that CDMH had effectively assumed direct responsibility for ensuring services were delivered. Under Government Code section 7576, the duty to provide mental health services falls on "the State Department of Mental Health, or a community mental health service designated by the State Department of Mental Health." When LACDMH refused to act, that duty reverted to CDMH itself. The ALJ found that CDMH's failure to step in and ensure Student received services denied Student a FAPE from October 14, 2010 onward. LAUSD's offer of additional school-based counseling was not an adequate substitute because it did not include family therapy or the intensity of individual counseling that the assessment had recommended.

What Was Ordered

1. CDMH must monitor LACDMH's compliance with the November 18, 2010 IEP and ensure that the 10 hours of compensatory counseling services promised in that IEP are delivered to Student by June 30, 2011.
2. If LACDMH fails to deliver those 10 compensatory hours by June 30, 2011, CDMH itself must directly provide any outstanding compensatory education by August 1, 2011.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A school district's substitute services don't automatically fill the gap when a mental health agency walks away. In this case, LAUSD offered extra school-based counseling, but the ALJ found it was not sufficient because it lacked family therapy and the required intensity. If your child's IEP calls for specific mental health services, a less intensive alternative is not a legal substitute.

2. The state cannot eliminate your child's rights through a budget veto. The ALJ held that the Governor's attempt to suspend AB 3632 was unconstitutional. Even when state funding is cut or disputed, the underlying legal mandate to provide services to your child does not automatically disappear. If an agency tells you services are cancelled because of a budget action, that may not be the end of the story.

3. When a county mental health agency refuses to show up, the state agency can become directly responsible. This case established that CDMH — not just the local county agency — can be held liable when the county walks away from its AB 3632 duties. Parents can name state-level agencies in due process hearings when local agencies abdicate responsibility.

4. Timeliness at IEP meetings matters. The county was already approaching the end of its legally required 60-day assessment window when it failed to attend the October 14 IEP meeting. Missing that meeting was not just a procedural inconvenience — it caused a real gap in services that the ALJ recognized as a denial of FAPE. Parents should track assessment and IEP timelines carefully and push back when deadlines are missed.