District Wins: Marijuana Incident Not a Manifestation of Student's ADHD

A 15-year-old student with ADHD was expelled after smoking marijuana on school grounds and argued that the conduct was a manifestation of her disability. The ALJ found that the incident was planned over two days, not an impulsive act caused by her ADHD, and that the district had properly implemented her IEP and conducted a fair manifestation determination review. All three of the student's claims were denied.

What Happened

A 15-year-old 10th grader at Center High School was eligible for special education under the category of Other Health Impairment (OHI), based on a diagnosis of ADHD. Her IEP focused on helping her with inattention, poor organization, and academic skills — she received accommodations like extended time, a study skills class, and weekly backpack checks to help her stay on track. On October 11, 2011, she was caught smoking marijuana in a school restroom with two other students. The marijuana had been accepted as a birthday gift from a classmate the day before, and the three students had made a general plan to smoke it together. The student was suspended and ultimately expelled through the end of the school year.

The student's mother challenged the expulsion by filing a due process complaint, arguing that smoking marijuana was an impulsive act caused by the student's ADHD, that the district failed to implement her IEP (specifically, that her backpack was not checked on the day before the incident), and that the district had predetermined the outcome of the manifestation determination review meeting held on October 24, 2011. The mother also pointed out that the student's ADHD medication had not been taken on time that morning, which she believed contributed to the student's impulsive behavior. The ALJ conducted a four-day expedited hearing and ruled in favor of the district on all three issues.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ carefully analyzed each of the student's three claims and rejected them all:

The conduct was not caused by or directly related to the student's ADHD. The ALJ found that while the student's ADHD primarily affected her attention, focus, and organization at school, there was no significant evidence that impulsivity or hyperactivity were major educational concerns. The incident was not a spontaneous, unplanned act — the student accepted the marijuana the day before, had overnight to reconsider, coordinated with two other students, and even texted a third student to bring a lighter during first period. The ALJ acknowledged that the initial decision to accept the marijuana might have been somewhat impulsive, but found that any relationship to her disability was "attenuated" at best — not "direct and substantial" as the law requires.
The district did not fail to implement the student's IEP. The student argued that because her special education teacher did not check her backpack on the Monday of the incident, the IEP was violated. The ALJ rejected this, noting that the IEP only required Friday backpack checks — not daily checks. Teachers were aware of the student's IEP and were implementing her accommodations. The ALJ found no meaningful failure to carry out the IEP's requirements, and no causal link between any alleged lapse and the marijuana incident.
The district did not predetermine the outcome of the manifestation determination review meeting. The student's mother said she felt the October 24, 2011 meeting was a "done deal" before it began, but could not point to any specific evidence of bias. The ALJ found that the nearly two-hour meeting included a full discussion of all relevant information, input from Parents and the student, and individualized votes by each district team member. The fact that district staff already knew about the incident from their own investigation did not constitute predetermination.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for relief was denied in its entirety.
The district's manifestation determination — that the student's conduct was not a manifestation of her disability — was upheld.
The district's expulsion was therefore allowed to stand under applicable law.
The ALJ noted that separate FAPE issues raised in the original complaint were bifurcated and set for a separate regular due process hearing — those questions were not resolved in this decision.

Why This Matters for Parents

Planning over time defeats an impulsivity argument. If a student's conduct involved any degree of advance planning — even an informal agreement made the day before — it becomes very difficult to argue that the act was an impulsive, uncontrolled symptom of ADHD. Courts and ALJs look closely at whether the student had time to reflect and choose differently.
Your child's IEP must actually address impulsivity for it to count in a manifestation hearing. In this case, the student's IEP focused on attention and organization — not behavioral impulsivity. If impulsivity is a real symptom of your child's disability that affects their behavior at school, make sure the IEP includes goals and supports for that specific area, so there is a documented record connecting the disability to behavior.
A missed medication dose, by itself, is not enough. The mother argued that the student's ADHD medication had not been taken on time. While sympathetic, the ALJ found this argument unpersuasive because the plan to smoke marijuana began the day before — before the medication issue arose — and the student had multiple chances to stop.
"Feeling" like a meeting was predetermined is not enough — you need evidence. Parents have a right to a genuine, open-minded manifestation determination review. But vague impressions that the outcome was decided in advance will not prevail at hearing. If you believe a meeting was predetermined, document specific statements or actions by district staff — in writing, as soon as possible after the meeting — that show closed-mindedness or refusal to consider your input.
IEP services must match the student's actual needs. This case is a reminder to regularly review whether your child's IEP reflects all areas where their disability affects them — including behavioral and social domains, not just academics. If your child struggles with impulsivity, hyperactivity, or peer pressure in the school environment, those needs should be explicitly addressed in the IEP so there is a clear record if a disciplinary situation ever arises.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ carefully analyzed each of the student's three claims and rejected them all:

The conduct was not caused by or directly related to the student's ADHD. The ALJ found that while the student's ADHD primarily affected her attention, focus, and organization at school, there was no significant evidence that impulsivity or hyperactivity were major educational concerns. The incident was not a spontaneous, unplanned act — the student accepted the marijuana the day before, had overnight to reconsider, coordinated with two other students, and even texted a third student to bring a lighter during first period. The ALJ acknowledged that the initial decision to accept the marijuana might have been somewhat impulsive, but found that any relationship to her disability was "attenuated" at best — not "direct and substantial" as the law requires.
The district did not fail to implement the student's IEP. The student argued that because her special education teacher did not check her backpack on the Monday of the incident, the IEP was violated. The ALJ rejected this, noting that the IEP only required Friday backpack checks — not daily checks. Teachers were aware of the student's IEP and were implementing her accommodations. The ALJ found no meaningful failure to carry out the IEP's requirements, and no causal link between any alleged lapse and the marijuana incident.
The district did not predetermine the outcome of the manifestation determination review meeting. The student's mother said she felt the October 24, 2011 meeting was a "done deal" before it began, but could not point to any specific evidence of bias. The ALJ found that the nearly two-hour meeting included a full discussion of all relevant information, input from Parents and the student, and individualized votes by each district team member. The fact that district staff already knew about the incident from their own investigation did not constitute predetermination.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for relief was denied in its entirety.
The district's manifestation determination — that the student's conduct was not a manifestation of her disability — was upheld.
The district's expulsion was therefore allowed to stand under applicable law.
The ALJ noted that separate FAPE issues raised in the original complaint were bifurcated and set for a separate regular due process hearing — those questions were not resolved in this decision.

Why This Matters for Parents

Planning over time defeats an impulsivity argument. If a student's conduct involved any degree of advance planning — even an informal agreement made the day before — it becomes very difficult to argue that the act was an impulsive, uncontrolled symptom of ADHD. Courts and ALJs look closely at whether the student had time to reflect and choose differently.
Your child's IEP must actually address impulsivity for it to count in a manifestation hearing. In this case, the student's IEP focused on attention and organization — not behavioral impulsivity. If impulsivity is a real symptom of your child's disability that affects their behavior at school, make sure the IEP includes goals and supports for that specific area, so there is a documented record connecting the disability to behavior.
A missed medication dose, by itself, is not enough. The mother argued that the student's ADHD medication had not been taken on time. While sympathetic, the ALJ found this argument unpersuasive because the plan to smoke marijuana began the day before — before the medication issue arose — and the student had multiple chances to stop.
"Feeling" like a meeting was predetermined is not enough — you need evidence. Parents have a right to a genuine, open-minded manifestation determination review. But vague impressions that the outcome was decided in advance will not prevail at hearing. If you believe a meeting was predetermined, document specific statements or actions by district staff — in writing, as soon as possible after the meeting — that show closed-mindedness or refusal to consider your input.
IEP services must match the student's actual needs. This case is a reminder to regularly review whether your child's IEP reflects all areas where their disability affects them — including behavioral and social domains, not just academics. If your child struggles with impulsivity, hyperactivity, or peer pressure in the school environment, those needs should be explicitly addressed in the IEP so there is a clear record if a disciplinary situation ever arises.