District Denied FAPE by Ignoring Student's School Avoidance; Residential Tuition Reimbursed

What Happened

Student was a teenager eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance (ED), with a documented history of PTSD, ADHD, and chronic absenteeism going back to fourth grade. By the start of seventh grade in fall 2009, Student had effectively stopped attending school altogether, refusing to leave home despite his Parent's efforts. Parent worked nights and could not physically compel Student — who was over six feet tall and more than 200 pounds — to go to school. When Student did appear briefly in fall 2009, his teacher reported he could not engage even with one-on-one aide support. Parent eventually withdrew Student and enrolled him in a home-based charter school, which he also failed to engage with. After re-enrolling Student in January 2010, he never returned to campus again.

The district convened an IEP in February 2010, agreed to reassess Student and refer him to the county mental health agency (CMH), but did not offer any services in the meantime to help Student access his education. By the time IEP meetings were held in May and June 2010, Student had been absent for the vast majority of two school years. Parent gave the required written notice and unilaterally enrolled Student in a residential treatment program in Utah (Provo), where Student ultimately succeeded academically and returned home ready to engage in school. Parent filed for due process seeking reimbursement for the cost of that placement.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district denied Student a FAPE at both the May 17, 2010 and June 24, 2010 IEP meetings. Although the district offered more restrictive special day classes on a general education campus, these offers were inappropriate because they presumed Student would simply show up — something his entire history made clear he could not do without intensive support. The district never offered home instruction, home-based behavioral services, or transportation to help Student leave the house and access either school or therapy. The district's attendance goal placed responsibility entirely on Student and Parent, with no district-provided intervention.

The district also failed to offer Extended School Year (ESY) services, despite overwhelming evidence that Student had missed the vast majority of the school year and would not be prepared for the following year without additional support. The ALJ further found that the district failed to hold an IEP meeting at the start of the 2009-2010 school year — a procedural violation — though the remedy for that finding was folded into the broader reimbursement order. CMH was also found to have denied FAPE at the June 2010 IEP by offering only clinic-based outpatient services while internally acknowledging that home-based services were essential, yet deliberately excluding those services from the written IEP offer.

What Was Ordered

1. The district was ordered to reimburse Parent for Student's tuition at the residential placement for July through October 8, 2010, totaling approximately $28,912, with CMH directed to reimburse the district for the mental health portion of those costs.
2. The district was ordered to reimburse Parent for tuition from October 9, 2010 through April 2011, totaling approximately $69,515.
3. The district was ordered to reimburse Parent $8,203 for transportation and related expenses connected to the residential placement.
4. Reimbursement for May through August 2011 was denied because Student had caught up academically by that point and the evidence did not support continued ESY-level need.
5. Reimbursement for the period when Parent kept Student out of school without returning to the district (October 16, 2009 through January 11, 2010) was also denied, as Parent's own conduct contributed to the educational loss during that window.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. An IEP offer is only meaningful if it addresses how the student will actually access it. If your child has a documented pattern of not attending school or not leaving the home, the district must offer services — such as home instruction, home-based behavioral support, or transportation — that give the child a real path to education. Offering a classroom placement to a child who cannot get to school is not a FAPE.

2. Services that aren't written into the IEP don't count. CMH argued at hearing that it had intended to provide intensive home-based services. The ALJ rejected this because those services were never included in the written IEP offer. Whatever a district or related agency promises verbally or discusses informally, only what appears in the signed IEP document is legally binding.

3. ESY must be offered when a student has missed significant instruction and needs support to prepare for the next school year. The district's failure to offer ESY was a separate FAPE violation. If your child has missed substantial school time due to disability-related reasons, ask the IEP team in writing to address ESY explicitly.

4. Parent conduct matters in reimbursement cases — but does not erase the district's obligation. The ALJ reduced the reimbursement award for the period when Parent kept Student out of school without re-engaging the district. However, Parent's preference for residential placement and failure to pursue other options did not eliminate the district's duty to offer FAPE. Document your attempts to work with the district, and return to the IEP process even when frustrated with the system.