Premeditated Drug Sale Not a Manifestation of Student's ADHD, ALJ Rules

A 15-year-old student with a specific learning disability and ADHD was facing expulsion from Los Angeles Unified School District after selling his prescription Adderall on campus. Parents argued the sale was an impulsive act caused by his ADHD, but the ALJ found the transaction was planned and deliberate, not impulsive, and upheld the district's manifestation determination. All relief sought by the student was denied.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old eighth grader with a specific learning disability (SLD) and ADHD, attending a Special Day Program at a middle school within Los Angeles Unified School District. His SLD involved auditory processing deficits and attention deficits, and he had a long history of impulsive behavior at school — including verbal outbursts, class disruptions, and defiance — for which the district had provided counseling and a behavior support plan. He took Adderall daily for his ADHD.

In late March 2011, Student agreed to sell one of his Adderall pills to another student for $5.00. He brought the pill to school the next day and completed the sale. The district did not learn of the transaction until about a month later, when the student who bought the pill was caught smoking marijuana and disclosed the earlier transaction. After investigating, the district suspended Student and convened a pre-expulsion meeting, which also served as the legally required "manifestation determination" meeting. That team concluded Student's conduct was not caused by or directly and substantially related to his disability, and the district moved toward expulsion. Parents disagreed and filed for due process, arguing that Student's impulsivity — a core symptom of his ADHD — caused him to engage in the drug sale without thinking through the consequences.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor, finding that Student failed to meet his burden of proving the drug sale was a manifestation of his disability. The key issue was whether the conduct was truly impulsive or whether it was planned. The ALJ found the evidence clearly showed the transaction was premeditated: Student had negotiated the price in advance, brought the pill to school the following day, and completed the sale at the agreed price when the buyer was ready. This was not a spontaneous reaction — it unfolded over at least one to two days and involved a series of deliberate decisions.

The ALJ acknowledged that Student's ADHD genuinely caused impulsive behavior at school, but distinguished that pattern from the drug transaction. Student's typical impulsive behaviors — blurting out inappropriate comments, reacting to peers in the moment — were very different in character from a planned drug sale. The ALJ also noted that at the pre-expulsion meeting, Student himself admitted he knew what he had done was wrong. That acknowledgment undercut the claim that his disability prevented him from understanding the consequences of his actions. The fact that the drug involved was his own ADHD medication was not, by itself, a sufficient link to conclude his disability caused the misconduct.

The ALJ also noted that Parents offered no expert testimony on the manifestation question, while the district presented testimony from Student's special education teacher, the assistant principal, and a school psychologist — all of whom distinguished Student's impulsive classroom behavior from the deliberate drug transaction.

What Was Ordered

The student's request to reverse the district's expulsion recommendation was denied.
All other relief sought by Student in his complaint was denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on the only issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Planning and premeditation are critical factors in manifestation determinations. The law asks whether a student's conduct was caused by their disability. When conduct unfolds over multiple days and involves deliberate decisions — like negotiating a price and bringing contraband to school — it is much harder to argue the behavior was impulsive, even if the student genuinely struggles with impulsivity in other situations.
A student's own admission can hurt their case. When Student said he knew what he did was wrong, that statement directly contradicted the argument that his ADHD prevented him from understanding consequences. Parents should be aware that statements made by a student during discipline proceedings can become evidence at a due process hearing.
The burden of proof falls on whoever files the complaint. In this case, the parents filed the due process complaint, which meant they had to prove the manifestation determination was wrong — not the other way around. Parents challenging a district's manifestation determination should be prepared to present expert evidence, such as testimony from a psychologist familiar with how the student's specific disability affects their behavior.
Not all bad behavior by a student with ADHD is automatically a manifestation of ADHD. A disability like ADHD may cause some impulsive behaviors while leaving other, more calculated behaviors unrelated to the disability. The ALJ here drew a clear line between Student's classroom outbursts (impulsive, disability-related) and the drug sale (premeditated, not disability-related). Parents should think carefully about whether the specific behavior at issue truly reflects how their child's disability manifests.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's request to reverse the district's expulsion recommendation was denied.
All other relief sought by Student in his complaint was denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on the only issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Planning and premeditation are critical factors in manifestation determinations. The law asks whether a student's conduct was caused by their disability. When conduct unfolds over multiple days and involves deliberate decisions — like negotiating a price and bringing contraband to school — it is much harder to argue the behavior was impulsive, even if the student genuinely struggles with impulsivity in other situations.
A student's own admission can hurt their case. When Student said he knew what he did was wrong, that statement directly contradicted the argument that his ADHD prevented him from understanding consequences. Parents should be aware that statements made by a student during discipline proceedings can become evidence at a due process hearing.
The burden of proof falls on whoever files the complaint. In this case, the parents filed the due process complaint, which meant they had to prove the manifestation determination was wrong — not the other way around. Parents challenging a district's manifestation determination should be prepared to present expert evidence, such as testimony from a psychologist familiar with how the student's specific disability affects their behavior.
Not all bad behavior by a student with ADHD is automatically a manifestation of ADHD. A disability like ADHD may cause some impulsive behaviors while leaving other, more calculated behaviors unrelated to the disability. The ALJ here drew a clear line between Student's classroom outbursts (impulsive, disability-related) and the drug sale (premeditated, not disability-related). Parents should think carefully about whether the specific behavior at issue truly reflects how their child's disability manifests.