District Must Fund IEE or File Due Process — Offering to Reassess Isn't Enough

Parents of a six-year-old adopted from China disagreed with Fullerton School District's 2010 psychological assessment and requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. Instead of either agreeing to fund the IEE or filing for due process to defend its assessment, the District offered to reassess Student itself — a response the ALJ found was not a lawful option. The District was ordered to reimburse Parents $6,475 for the cost of the independent evaluation and the evaluator's attendance at the IEP meeting.

What Happened

Student is a child who was adopted from China at age four, having spent her early years in an orphanage. Shortly after arriving in the United States in early 2010, Parents asked Fullerton School District to assess her for special education eligibility. The District conducted a psychological evaluation in February 2010 and, at an IEP meeting in March 2010, found Student eligible under the category of intellectual disability. She was placed in a special day class (SDC) for students with moderate to severe disabilities and provided with speech and language services. Parents consented to that initial IEP.

Within months, however, Parents began to question whether the assessment accurately reflected Student's abilities and whether her placement was appropriate. They believed Student belonged in a mild-to-moderate SDC rather than the more restrictive moderate-to-severe classroom. Beginning in September 2010, Parents raised concerns at meetings and in writing. At the annual IEP meeting in May 2011, they formally requested an IEE — an independent evaluation paid for by the District. Their attorney followed up in writing, making clear that Parents disagreed with the District's February 2010 psychological assessment. Instead of funding the IEE or filing its own due process complaint to defend its assessment, the District responded by offering to conduct a new assessment itself and eventually filed a complaint seeking to compel that reassessment without parental consent. That complaint was later dismissed as moot after Parents signed a different, broader assessment plan in November 2011.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that when Parents requested an IEE, the District had exactly two lawful options: (1) agree to fund the independent evaluation, or (2) file a due process complaint asking OAH to confirm that its original assessment met all legal requirements. The District did neither. Instead, it offered to reassess Student on its own terms — which is not a recognized response under federal or California special education law. The District also sent Parents a written notice in June 2011 claiming it had a right to assess Student before considering funding an IEE, which the ALJ found did not comply with the law.

The ALJ further found that the District's procedural failure — failing to either fund the IEE or promptly file for due process — was, by itself, sufficient grounds to order reimbursement, without even needing to decide whether the original 2010 assessment was actually flawed. The law requires districts to act quickly when a parent requests an IEE, because delays harm children by leaving IEP teams without accurate, up-to-date information. The District also argued that Parents waited too long to request an IEE (roughly 15 months after the original assessment), but the ALJ rejected this argument because no federal or California law sets a deadline for requesting an IEE other than the general two-year statute of limitations for filing due process complaints.

What Was Ordered

The District is ordered to reimburse Parents $5,512.50 for the cost of the independent neuropsychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Mitchel Perlman.
The District is ordered to reimburse Parents an additional $962.50 for Dr. Perlman's attendance at the November 2011 IEP team meeting where his evaluation was discussed.
Total reimbursement ordered: $6,475.00.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot respond to an IEE request by simply offering to do its own reassessment. When you request an IEE, the law gives the district only two choices: pay for the independent evaluation, or file for due process to defend its prior assessment. Any other response — including offering to redo the evaluation itself — is a procedural violation that can, on its own, entitle you to reimbursement.
There is no deadline for requesting an IEE beyond the general two-year statute of limitations. Districts may try to argue you waited too long to disagree with an assessment, but no federal or California law sets a specific time limit shorter than two years. If you have ongoing concerns about an old evaluation, you still have the right to request an IEE.
You do not have to explain why you disagree with a district's assessment. The law does not require parents to give reasons for requesting an IEE. While the district may ask, it cannot demand an explanation or use your silence as a reason to deny the request.
When a district funds an IEE, it may also be required to pay for the independent evaluator to attend the IEP meeting. If your independent evaluator attends the IEP meeting where their report is discussed, the district can be ordered to cover that cost — especially when their presence is important for answering questions and helping the team understand the evaluation's findings.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The District is ordered to reimburse Parents $5,512.50 for the cost of the independent neuropsychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Mitchel Perlman.
The District is ordered to reimburse Parents an additional $962.50 for Dr. Perlman's attendance at the November 2011 IEP team meeting where his evaluation was discussed.
Total reimbursement ordered: $6,475.00.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot respond to an IEE request by simply offering to do its own reassessment. When you request an IEE, the law gives the district only two choices: pay for the independent evaluation, or file for due process to defend its prior assessment. Any other response — including offering to redo the evaluation itself — is a procedural violation that can, on its own, entitle you to reimbursement.
There is no deadline for requesting an IEE beyond the general two-year statute of limitations. Districts may try to argue you waited too long to disagree with an assessment, but no federal or California law sets a specific time limit shorter than two years. If you have ongoing concerns about an old evaluation, you still have the right to request an IEE.
You do not have to explain why you disagree with a district's assessment. The law does not require parents to give reasons for requesting an IEE. While the district may ask, it cannot demand an explanation or use your silence as a reason to deny the request.
When a district funds an IEE, it may also be required to pay for the independent evaluator to attend the IEP meeting. If your independent evaluator attends the IEP meeting where their report is discussed, the district can be ordered to cover that cost — especially when their presence is important for answering questions and helping the team understand the evaluation's findings.