Orange County Mental Health Agency Prevails in FAPE Dispute for Student with Asperger's

A 14-year-old student with Asperger's Syndrome and a history of suicidal ideations challenged the Orange County Health Care Agency's mental health service plan as inadequate under the IDEA. Parents refused to sign OCHCA's service plan, believing its single anger management goal was insufficient to address their daughter's complex needs. The ALJ found that OCHCA's assessment and proposed services were legally adequate, that OCHCA had no independent obligation to recommend a therapeutic placement, and that the student's failure to sign the service plan undermined her own claims. All of the student's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old eighth grader with Asperger's Syndrome living within the boundaries of Tustin Unified School District. Her history was serious: during the prior school year at a private school specializing in Asperger's, she was hospitalized approximately four times for suicidal ideations and self-injury (cutting), and was eventually asked to leave following allegations of stalking, cyber-bullying, and physical aggression. After enrolling in Tustin, the IEP team recognized that her mental health needs exceeded what school counseling could address and referred her to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), the county mental health agency responsible under California's Chapter 26.5 framework (AB 3632) for providing related mental health services to eligible special education students.

OCHCA completed a mental health assessment in August 2010 and proposed a service plan with a single anger management goal, offering twice-monthly individual therapy sessions — a reduction from the weekly therapy Student was already receiving privately. Parents, advised by their private psychologist Dr. Paltin, believed the plan was far too narrow. They wanted goals addressing Student's mood disorder, suicidal ideations, social skills deficits, and sensory issues. They also requested a therapeutic nonpublic school placement. When OCHCA agreed to increase services to weekly sessions but kept the same goal, Parents still refused to sign the service plan. On September 14, 2010, Student threatened to hang herself in the school bathroom and never returned to Tustin. Parents privately enrolled her at Fusion Academy, a non-therapeutic one-on-one instruction program. OCHCA's mandate was subsequently suspended when the Governor line-item vetoed funding for Chapter 26.5 services on October 8, 2010.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ denied all three of Student's claims. On the first issue — whether OCHCA's service plan and goals were inadequate — the ALJ acknowledged that OCHCA's initial offer of bi-monthly sessions was difficult to justify given Student's history, and that Student had convincingly shown the frequency was insufficient. However, this finding did not carry the day because OCHCA later agreed to increase sessions to weekly, which Parents themselves had said was acceptable. Parents then refused to sign the revised service plan solely because they disagreed with the single anger management goal. The ALJ found the anger management goal legally adequate as an initial referral goal, particularly when viewed alongside Tustin's own IEP goals addressing Student's sensory, communication, and behavioral needs. OCHCA was not required to treat traits directly associated with Asperger's Syndrome — such as social interaction deficits and sensory integration — because those were the school district's responsibility. The ALJ also found that OCHCA appropriately reviewed available records and interviewed Student and her mother, and that Dr. Berg was not legally required to reach Dr. Paltin before completing the assessment.

On the second issue — whether OCHCA should have independently evaluated Student for a therapeutic school placement — the ALJ found no legal basis for this claim. Under Chapter 26.5, OCHCA's obligation to weigh in on placement decisions only arises after the IEP team has found a student eligible as seriously emotionally disturbed and a team member recommends residential placement. Neither condition was met here. Tustin, not OCHCA, is responsible for eligibility determinations, and Parents had not even consented to Tustin's requested triennial reassessment. On the third issue — OCHCA's absence from the October 7, 2010 IEP meeting — the ALJ found that Tustin, not OCHCA, was responsible for sending the invitation. Tustin had already settled with Parents and resolved that issue, making Student's claim against OCHCA on this point both legally unsupported and, the ALJ noted, frivolous.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
OCHCA was determined to be the prevailing party on all three issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to sign a service plan can sink your own case. Parents here had a legitimate concern about OCHCA's original low-frequency offer — and the ALJ agreed it was hard to justify. But when OCHCA increased services to weekly sessions, Parents refused to sign because they didn't like the goal. That refusal meant services never started, and it significantly weakened their legal position. If you disagree with parts of a service plan, consult an advocate about whether to accept what's offered while continuing to push for improvements, rather than rejecting the whole plan.
Mental health agencies under Chapter 26.5 have limited, defined roles — and they are not the same as your school district. OCHCA's job was to assess Student, recommend mental health goals, and provide therapy. It was not responsible for recommending a therapeutic school placement, changing Student's eligibility category, or treating the core traits of Asperger's Syndrome. Understanding exactly what each agency is legally required to do helps parents know where to direct their demands.
A school district — not the mental health agency — is responsible for calling IEP meetings and deciding eligibility. The ALJ was clear: if Parents wanted Student evaluated for a different eligibility category (such as emotional disturbance) that might have opened the door to a therapeutic placement, they needed to pursue that with Tustin. Parents had actually refused Tustin's offers to conduct updated assessments. Consenting to assessments you may need is often a prerequisite for getting the services you want.
Settlement agreements with one party can limit your ability to sue another. Student's settlement with Tustin resolved most of her educational claims. When she then tried to pursue related claims against OCHCA — such as OCHCA's failure to attend the October IEP — the ALJ found those claims were either waived by the settlement or lacked independent legal support. Before settling with one party in a multi-party dispute, carefully review what rights you are preserving against any remaining parties.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
OCHCA was determined to be the prevailing party on all three issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to sign a service plan can sink your own case. Parents here had a legitimate concern about OCHCA's original low-frequency offer — and the ALJ agreed it was hard to justify. But when OCHCA increased services to weekly sessions, Parents refused to sign because they didn't like the goal. That refusal meant services never started, and it significantly weakened their legal position. If you disagree with parts of a service plan, consult an advocate about whether to accept what's offered while continuing to push for improvements, rather than rejecting the whole plan.
Mental health agencies under Chapter 26.5 have limited, defined roles — and they are not the same as your school district. OCHCA's job was to assess Student, recommend mental health goals, and provide therapy. It was not responsible for recommending a therapeutic school placement, changing Student's eligibility category, or treating the core traits of Asperger's Syndrome. Understanding exactly what each agency is legally required to do helps parents know where to direct their demands.
A school district — not the mental health agency — is responsible for calling IEP meetings and deciding eligibility. The ALJ was clear: if Parents wanted Student evaluated for a different eligibility category (such as emotional disturbance) that might have opened the door to a therapeutic placement, they needed to pursue that with Tustin. Parents had actually refused Tustin's offers to conduct updated assessments. Consenting to assessments you may need is often a prerequisite for getting the services you want.
Settlement agreements with one party can limit your ability to sue another. Student's settlement with Tustin resolved most of her educational claims. When she then tried to pursue related claims against OCHCA — such as OCHCA's failure to attend the October IEP — the ALJ found those claims were either waived by the settlement or lacked independent legal support. Before settling with one party in a multi-party dispute, carefully review what rights you are preserving against any remaining parties.