California Children's Services Cannot Unilaterally Cut IEP Therapy Services

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old boy with severe cerebral palsy, eosinophilic esophagitis, and visual impairment who lives with his grandparents. He has required special education and related services since age three. His IEP included physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) delivered by California Children's Services (CCS), a state medical program that provides therapy to eligible children in schools. Under his August 2010 IEP, Student was entitled to 60 minutes of PT twice a week and 45 minutes of OT once a week — services that his IEP team had determined were essential for him to access his education.

In May 2011, CCS decided internally — without convening an IEP meeting, without consulting the IEP team, and without asking for Grandparents' consent — to dramatically cut Student's therapy. PT was first cut in half, then reduced to once every two weeks. OT was slashed from once a week to once a month, leaving Student with just one-eighth of the OT his IEP required. Grandparents objected, but CCS proceeded anyway, insisting that it only had to follow its own internal medical-necessity standards and had no obligation to participate in the IEP process. Student's condition deteriorated rapidly: he experienced increased pain, missed significant amounts of school, lost mobility, regressed in speech, and exhibited increased behavioral difficulties. CCS then went further, withdrawing from the IEP process entirely and eventually requesting that its services be removed from Student's IEP altogether.

What CCS Did Wrong

1. Unilateral reduction of IEP services was a substantive FAPE violation. CCS cut Student's PT by 75% and his OT by 87.5% without any IEP process. The ALJ found these reductions were far more than minor discrepancies — they were material failures to deliver services required by the IEP, and therefore substantive violations of the IDEA. No separate showing of educational harm was required, though the harm here was extensive and well-documented.

2. Bypassing the IEP process was a procedural FAPE violation. Under the IDEA, related services in an IEP cannot be reduced without an IEP meeting, team discussion, a revised offer, and parental consent. CCS did none of these things. It acted immediately and unilaterally. The ALJ found this violated every basic procedural protection the IDEA provides.

3. CCS was required to follow the stay-put rule. CCS argued it could cut services whenever it decided they were no longer medically necessary and that the school district would simply have to fill the gap. The ALJ firmly rejected this. State law (Government Code Chapter 26.5), federal law (IDEA Section 1415), and the interagency agreements CCS had signed all required CCS to continue IEP services at their existing levels during any dispute, with reimbursement available afterward if CCS ultimately prevailed.

4. CCS was legally required to participate in IEP meetings. CCS claimed it was not an IEP team member and only needed to notify the district of service changes. The ALJ found this plainly wrong. State law requires CCS therapists to attend IEP meetings when invited, and CCS is bound by the same IDEA procedural safeguards as any other public agency providing related services. CCS's withdrawal from Student's January 2012 IEP meeting — and its refusal to offer any PT or OT for the following school year — was itself a violation that denied Student a FAPE.

What Was Ordered

1. CCS must immediately restore Student's PT to 60 minutes, twice a week, and OT to 45 minutes, once a week.
2. For the first six months following the decision, CCS must provide PT at least three times a week for one hour per session to address Student's regression caused by the service cuts.
3. Grandparents must agree in writing before any modifications to the therapy schedule are made.
4. CCS must immediately resume participation in Student's IEP process in accordance with all applicable laws and interagency agreements.
5. CCS therapists must be available to attend IEP meetings in person for the next 12 months.
6. CCS must cooperate with the IEP team in accurately describing its PT and OT services within the IEP document, in a format that complies with IDEA requirements.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. State health agencies like CCS cannot cut your child's IEP therapy services on their own. Even when a non-school agency like CCS provides therapy, those services are part of the IEP and are protected by the same rules. Any reduction requires an IEP meeting, a new offer, and your consent — not just a phone call or letter informing you of the change.

2. The stay-put rule protects your child's services during any dispute. If you disagree with a proposed cut to services and request a due process hearing, the agency must continue providing the services at the current IEP level until the dispute is resolved. CCS cannot simply reduce services and tell the school district to figure it out.

3. Therapy providers who deliver IEP services are IEP team members. CCS tried to claim it had no obligation to attend IEP meetings or follow IEP procedures. The ALJ rejected this completely. If a related service provider — whether a county health agency, a contracted therapist, or any other entity — is delivering services listed in your child's IEP, they are part of the team and must participate in IEP meetings.

4. Document your child's regression carefully. In this case, Grandparents' detailed, credible testimony about Student's increased pain, school absences, mobility loss, and speech regression was central to proving both the harm and the need for compensatory services. Keep records of changes in your child's functioning, attendance, and behavior whenever services are reduced or disrupted.

5. OAH has jurisdiction over non-school agencies providing IEP services. CCS argued that OAH had no authority over it and that parents had to use a separate medical appeals process. The ALJ found this argument close to frivolous. If any public agency is responsible for services in your child's IEP, you can name them in a special education due process complaint.