Long Beach District Must Fund RTC Placement for Student With Escalating Behavioral Crisis

A Long Beach Unified School District student with autism (PDD-NOS), emotional disturbance, and severe mood disorder experienced escalating violence and behavioral crises at his non-public school placement. The county mental health agency (DMH) twice assessed the student and ultimately recommended placement in a residential treatment center (RTC), but the district refused to offer one. The ALJ found the district denied the student a FAPE by failing to follow DMH's RTC recommendation, ordering district-funded RTC placement contingent on the student's release from juvenile detention.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old young man diagnosed with autism (PDD-NOS), ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and severe mood disorder. He had been in special education since 2002 and had a long history of serious behavioral and emotional difficulties that disrupted his schooling from elementary school onward. After attending public high school briefly, Student was placed at a non-public school (Rossier Park High School) designed for students with behavioral disorders. While Student earned acceptable modified grades at Rossier, his behavior escalated significantly — he was involved in repeated physical assaults on peers and staff, went AWOL from school transportation, was found with marijuana, and displayed increasing impulsivity and aggression both at school and at home. Parent became alarmed, requested a referral to the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH), and eventually requested a reassessment to determine whether a more restrictive placement — specifically a residential treatment center (RTC) — was necessary.

DMH conducted two assessments. The first, in August 2011, found Student eligible for outpatient mental health services. But when DMH reassessed Student in September 2011, reviewing his full behavioral history including records the district had not originally provided, DMH's licensed clinical psychologist concluded that Student's escalating violence, severe mood disorder, and inability to be supervised adequately at home or at school required placement in a 24/7 therapeutic residential treatment program. The district convened an addendum IEP in November 2011 but refused to follow DMH's RTC recommendation, instead maintaining Student's NPS placement with some additional outpatient mental health services. Parent filed for due process in November 2011.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in Student's favor on the core issue: the district denied Student a FAPE by failing to offer RTC placement as recommended by DMH at the November 7-8, 2011 IEP meeting. The ALJ found DMH's assessor, Dr. Washington, credible and persuasive — she had assessed Student twice, reviewed his complete behavioral records, and consulted with his private psychiatrist and psychologist. All sources agreed Student needed more structure and 24/7 supervision than either Rossier or his home could provide. The district's argument that Student was receiving educational benefit because his modified grades were acceptable was rejected. The ALJ found the district's limited interventions — physical restraints and 60 minutes per week of individual counseling — had failed to address Student's escalating social and emotional impairment. The ALJ also noted that under California regulations in effect at the time, a DMH assessor's placement recommendation was to be treated as the IEP team's recommendation, making the district's refusal especially significant.

Parent's other claims were denied. The ALJ found the March 2011 IEP did include a valid offer of FAPE, with PLOPS and goals properly reviewed and a clear placement offer including related services and transportation. The district's attorney attending the November 2011 IEP did not deny Parent a meaningful opportunity to participate. There was no predetermination of placement. Group counseling was offered within weeks of the IEP meeting. DMH outpatient services were offered but rejected by Parent. The behavior intervention plan and keyboarding accommodation were also found adequate.

What Was Ordered

If the Juvenile Court — where Student was detained at the time of the hearing — decided in its sole discretion to release Student to an RTC as part of a disposition order, and Student remained a District resident, the district must arrange and fund the RTC placement.
Within 45 days of a qualifying Juvenile Court disposition order, the district must use its contracted mental health provider to identify an appropriate RTC consistent with DMH's recommendations and California education law.
The district must fund Student's transportation to the RTC, parent visits to the RTC consistent with district guidelines, and all counseling and services DMH recommended as of the November 2011 IEP.
The district must continue funding the RTC placement until it is changed through the IEP process, an OAH order, a Superior Court order, or Student is no longer a district resident.
All other requests for relief — including IEEs, compensatory education, and additional instructional services — were denied because Student did not present sufficient evidence to support those remedies.

Why This Matters for Parents

A county mental health agency's placement recommendation carries significant legal weight. At the time of this decision, California regulations required that a DMH assessor's recommendation be treated as the IEP team's recommendation. If your child has been assessed by a county mental health agency and the district refuses to follow that recommendation, this is a strong basis for a FAPE claim — especially when the assessor has reviewed the full record and conducted multiple evaluations.
Good grades alone do not prove a student is receiving educational benefit. The district pointed to Student's modified grades as evidence of progress, but the ALJ rejected this argument. If your child's behavior is escalating, they are being restrained, and mental health needs are going unmet, a court may find the district is not providing meaningful educational benefit — even if report cards look acceptable.
When your child's behavior is escalating and current placement is failing, push for a reassessment and a higher level of care. Parent in this case requested both the initial DMH referral and the reassessment. It was the reassessment — which included the complete behavioral incident record — that ultimately supported the RTC recommendation. Persistence in requesting updated evaluations that reflect the full picture of your child's needs can be decisive.
The remedy may be limited by circumstances outside the school system's control. Even though Student won on the RTC placement issue, the ALJ could not immediately order placement because Student was in juvenile detention and a Superior Court had jurisdiction. If your child is involved with the juvenile justice system, the school district's legal responsibility may shift to the county office of education, and the juvenile court's orders will take precedence over any OAH order.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

If the Juvenile Court — where Student was detained at the time of the hearing — decided in its sole discretion to release Student to an RTC as part of a disposition order, and Student remained a District resident, the district must arrange and fund the RTC placement.
Within 45 days of a qualifying Juvenile Court disposition order, the district must use its contracted mental health provider to identify an appropriate RTC consistent with DMH's recommendations and California education law.
The district must fund Student's transportation to the RTC, parent visits to the RTC consistent with district guidelines, and all counseling and services DMH recommended as of the November 2011 IEP.
The district must continue funding the RTC placement until it is changed through the IEP process, an OAH order, a Superior Court order, or Student is no longer a district resident.
All other requests for relief — including IEEs, compensatory education, and additional instructional services — were denied because Student did not present sufficient evidence to support those remedies.

Why This Matters for Parents

A county mental health agency's placement recommendation carries significant legal weight. At the time of this decision, California regulations required that a DMH assessor's recommendation be treated as the IEP team's recommendation. If your child has been assessed by a county mental health agency and the district refuses to follow that recommendation, this is a strong basis for a FAPE claim — especially when the assessor has reviewed the full record and conducted multiple evaluations.
Good grades alone do not prove a student is receiving educational benefit. The district pointed to Student's modified grades as evidence of progress, but the ALJ rejected this argument. If your child's behavior is escalating, they are being restrained, and mental health needs are going unmet, a court may find the district is not providing meaningful educational benefit — even if report cards look acceptable.
When your child's behavior is escalating and current placement is failing, push for a reassessment and a higher level of care. Parent in this case requested both the initial DMH referral and the reassessment. It was the reassessment — which included the complete behavioral incident record — that ultimately supported the RTC recommendation. Persistence in requesting updated evaluations that reflect the full picture of your child's needs can be decisive.
The remedy may be limited by circumstances outside the school system's control. Even though Student won on the RTC placement issue, the ALJ could not immediately order placement because Student was in juvenile detention and a Superior Court had jurisdiction. If your child is involved with the juvenile justice system, the school district's legal responsibility may shift to the county office of education, and the juvenile court's orders will take precedence over any OAH order.