Baldwin Park: District Wins on Placement, But Must Provide Behavior Aide and FAA

What Happened

Student is a boy with autism and a seizure disorder who had been receiving special education services from Baldwin Park Unified since age two. He also received in-home ABA therapy through Applied Behavioral Consultants (ABC), funded by the Regional Center. Parent had longstanding concerns about Student's aggressive behaviors at school — biting, hitting, kicking, and running out of the classroom — and repeatedly requested that the district place him at the ABC School, a private ABA-based program she believed was better suited to his needs. Instead, the district placed Student in a series of Special Day Classes (SDC) at Bursch Elementary and then at CVS (a nonpublic school). After a serious biting incident in November 2010, Parent removed Student from school entirely and kept him home for over a year.

Both parties filed for due process. Parent argued the district failed to properly assess Student's behavior, denied him appropriate placement and services, and shut her out of the IEP process. The district filed its own case arguing that its April 2011 IEP — which offered placement at the Willowood LACOE program — constituted a valid offer of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that the district should be allowed to implement over Parent's objections.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled largely in the district's favor, but found one significant violation: the April 2011 IEP failed to provide adequate behavior support.

On placements: The ALJ found that Student made measurable progress in the SDC at Bursch and at CVS, and that the district was not required to place Student at ABC School simply because Parent preferred it. Districts are allowed to choose their own teaching methodology, as long as the program provides some educational benefit — and the evidence showed it did.

On behavior assessment: The ALJ found a FAPE violation during the 2010–2011 school year because the district failed to conduct any formal behavioral assessment (either an FBA or a Functional Analysis Assessment, known as an FAA) while Student was still attending school and displaying severe, daily aggressive behaviors. The district had even promised to conduct both assessments at IEP meetings but never followed through while Student was enrolled.

On the April 2011 IEP: Although the IEP appropriately addressed speech, OT, and academics, it was legally deficient because it provided no behavioral goals, no behavior support plan, and — without explanation — no one-to-one aide, even though Student had always had one. The ALJ found this omission denied Student a FAPE.

On most other claims: Parent's claims regarding LAS services, OT services, assistive technology, and the district's alleged failure to consider ABC's recommendations were all denied. The ALJ found no evidence that these services were inadequate or that Student needed more than what was offered.

On compensatory education and reimbursement: The ALJ denied compensatory education and reimbursement. The ALJ found Parent's decision to keep Student home for over a year — in response to a single biting incident — was a disproportionate response, particularly since Parent provided no formal education at home and the doctor's letter she relied on did not actually recommend keeping Student out of school.

What Was Ordered

1. If Student enrolls at Willowood or any other district placement, ABC School must conduct a Functional Analysis Assessment (FAA) of Student at district expense, as soon as practicable. If ABC School is unable or unwilling, another contracted NPA or NPS may conduct the FAA at district expense.
2. If Student enrolls at Willowood or any other district placement, the district must provide a one-to-one behavior aide trained by ABC School in ABA techniques, to support Student throughout the school day, until the FAA is completed and a new IEP is developed.
3. After the FAA is completed, the district must convene an IEP meeting within the required timeframe to review the results and update Student's program.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Keeping your child home after an incident can hurt your legal case. The ALJ found that Parent's year-long removal of Student from school was unjustified and disproportionate, which eliminated her ability to recover compensatory education for that period. If your child is harmed or unsafe at school, document everything and request an emergency IEP — but work with an advocate before making the decision to withdraw.

2. A district's promise to conduct an assessment is not enough — insist on a written assessment plan and follow through. The district verbally agreed to conduct behavioral assessments at two separate IEP meetings but never completed them. Parents should always get assessment agreements in writing as part of the IEP document, and follow up if deadlines pass.

3. An IEP that acknowledges behavior problems but offers no behavior supports is legally deficient. The April 2011 IEP noted Student needed behavior support, yet included no behavior goals, no behavior plan, and no one-to-one aide. If an IEP identifies a need and then fails to address it with actual services, that gap can constitute a denial of FAPE.

4. Districts are not required to place students at a parent's preferred private school, even if that school might provide greater benefit. The legal standard is whether the district's program provides "some educational benefit," not the maximum possible benefit. If Student was making measurable progress on IEP goals, that is generally enough to satisfy the legal requirement.