District Must Hold Manifestation Hearing After Expelling Student It Knew Had Suspected Disability

A seventh-grade student in Fairfield-Suisun Unified was expelled after threatening a classmate in November 2011, without the district ever holding a manifestation determination review. The ALJ found the district had a basis of knowledge that the student had a suspected disability before the incident — based on a psychiatric diagnosis, alarming behavior patterns, and a parent conference just four days prior — and ordered the student reinstated and a manifestation meeting convened. The outcome was mixed: the student won on the key discipline issue but lost on claims that he was still a special education eligible student and that a post-incident assessment request should have stopped the expulsion.

What Happened

A 12-year-old boy had been identified as eligible for special education in 2003 — in kindergarten — for a speech and language impairment. The district exited him from special education at a triennial IEP meeting in November 2006, and he spent the next five years as a general education student. By the 2011–2012 school year he was a seventh grader at Suisun Valley Elementary School. He had a documented history of troubling behaviors: bullying, lack of empathy, threatening a teacher, playing with fire, and being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. His mother had repeatedly asked the school for psychological support and attended a Student Study Team (SST) meeting in May 2011. On November 4, 2011, he placed a sexually explicit and threatening note in a female classmate's book threatening to torture and kill her. The district immediately suspended him, then referred him for expulsion. He was formally expelled by the school board in February 2012 — all without ever convening a manifestation determination review meeting to evaluate whether his conduct was connected to a disability.

The student's parent filed for due process in March 2012, raising two main arguments: (1) that the student was still legally a special education student because he was never properly exited in 2006, and therefore the district was required to hold a manifestation review; and (2) that even if he was not a special education student, the district had enough knowledge of a suspected disability before the November 2011 incident to trigger the same protections. The parent also argued the district should have conducted an expedited assessment after she requested one in writing on November 10, 2011. The case was bifurcated, with the disciplinary issues heard on an expedited basis in April 2012.

What the ALJ Found

District violated the student's discipline procedural rights by proceeding to expulsion without a manifestation determination review (Issue 1b — Student Won): The ALJ found that by October 31, 2011 — four days before the disciplinary incident — the district had a sufficient basis of knowledge that the student had a suspected disability. The evidence showed that school administrators knew the student had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, had displayed alarming patterns of behavior at school (bullying, lack of empathy, threatening a teacher), had been the subject of an SST meeting, and that his mother had raised serious concerns about his mental health at a conference on October 31. Under federal law, a school district must hold a manifestation determination review within 10 school days of deciding to change a student's placement through suspension or expulsion — the district failed to do so.

Student's claim that he was still a special education student was time-barred (Issue 1a — District Won): The ALJ found that the mother knew or had reason to know that the district exited her son from special education at the November 17, 2006 IEP meeting. The two-year statute of limitations had therefore expired long before the complaint was filed in March 2012. A second-grade teacher gave credible testimony that the mother attended the 2006 IEP meeting and agreed to end speech services. The mother's testimony denying attendance was not found credible. No IEE was ever requested, no further IEP meetings were ever held, and the mother made no inquiry about special education services for over five years — all of which the ALJ found demonstrated she knew her son had been exited.

The post-incident assessment request did not halt the expulsion process (Issue 2 — District Won): The ALJ held that under federal law, a parent's request for an assessment must occur before the disciplinary incident to establish a basis of knowledge that triggers manifestation review protections. The mother's written assessment request came on November 10, 2011 — six days after the incident. While the district may have been obligated to conduct an expedited assessment, it could not have been completed in time for the district to timely hold a manifestation meeting. The ALJ preserved this issue for the student's separate, non-expedited FAPE case.

What Was Ordered

The ALJ declared that the district had a basis of knowledge of a suspected disability prior to the November 4, 2011 disciplinary incident.
The student was ordered immediately reinstated at his general education school, Suisun Valley, unless the parties mutually agreed to a different placement.
Within 10 school days of the order, the district was required to convene a manifestation determination review team meeting if it intended to suspend the student for more than 10 school days or expel him based on the November 2011 incident.
If the district failed to hold the manifestation review as ordered, it was required to expunge all references to the expulsion from the student's educational records.
The student's request for placement at a residential treatment center (Plumfield Academy) was denied because no evidence of eligibility for special education had yet been established.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your communications with school staff can trigger disciplinary protections even if your child isn't in special education. If school administrators knew about your child's psychiatric diagnosis, alarming behavior patterns, or mental health concerns before a disciplinary incident, your child may be entitled to a manifestation determination review — even without an IEP. Document every conversation, email, and meeting where you share concerns about your child's mental or emotional health.
You must raise disability concerns in writing before a disciplinary incident occurs. Federal law requires that a parent's concern about a disability be expressed in writing before the behavior that triggers discipline. A verbal request or a request made after the incident will not establish the district's "basis of knowledge." If your child is struggling behaviorally, send an email to the principal or special education director expressly stating that you believe your child may need special education services.
Letting years go by without questioning a special education exit can permanently close the door. The student in this case lost his strongest argument — that he was still a special education student — because the statute of limitations had run out. If your child is exited from special education and you disagree, you have only two years to file a due process complaint. Don't assume services will simply resume; follow up in writing and request an IEE if you think the assessment was wrong.
A school's failure to follow manifestation determination rules is a serious procedural violation with real consequences. When a district skips the manifestation review, a hearing officer can order the student reinstated and compel the district to hold the meeting — or even require expungement of the expulsion from school records. If your child is being expelled and has any history of disability, behavioral concerns, or mental health involvement, immediately contact a special education advocate or attorney.
Stay-put protections apply during the entire appeals process when the district had basis of knowledge of a disability. The amended order in this case clarified that the student had the right to remain at his specific school — not just any general education placement — throughout both the administrative and any judicial proceedings. If your child is ordered reinstated after a discipline dispute, the district cannot unilaterally move them to a different school as a substitute.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The ALJ declared that the district had a basis of knowledge of a suspected disability prior to the November 4, 2011 disciplinary incident.
The student was ordered immediately reinstated at his general education school, Suisun Valley, unless the parties mutually agreed to a different placement.
Within 10 school days of the order, the district was required to convene a manifestation determination review team meeting if it intended to suspend the student for more than 10 school days or expel him based on the November 2011 incident.
If the district failed to hold the manifestation review as ordered, it was required to expunge all references to the expulsion from the student's educational records.
The student's request for placement at a residential treatment center (Plumfield Academy) was denied because no evidence of eligibility for special education had yet been established.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your communications with school staff can trigger disciplinary protections even if your child isn't in special education. If school administrators knew about your child's psychiatric diagnosis, alarming behavior patterns, or mental health concerns before a disciplinary incident, your child may be entitled to a manifestation determination review — even without an IEP. Document every conversation, email, and meeting where you share concerns about your child's mental or emotional health.
You must raise disability concerns in writing before a disciplinary incident occurs. Federal law requires that a parent's concern about a disability be expressed in writing before the behavior that triggers discipline. A verbal request or a request made after the incident will not establish the district's "basis of knowledge." If your child is struggling behaviorally, send an email to the principal or special education director expressly stating that you believe your child may need special education services.
Letting years go by without questioning a special education exit can permanently close the door. The student in this case lost his strongest argument — that he was still a special education student — because the statute of limitations had run out. If your child is exited from special education and you disagree, you have only two years to file a due process complaint. Don't assume services will simply resume; follow up in writing and request an IEE if you think the assessment was wrong.
A school's failure to follow manifestation determination rules is a serious procedural violation with real consequences. When a district skips the manifestation review, a hearing officer can order the student reinstated and compel the district to hold the meeting — or even require expungement of the expulsion from school records. If your child is being expelled and has any history of disability, behavioral concerns, or mental health involvement, immediately contact a special education advocate or attorney.
Stay-put protections apply during the entire appeals process when the district had basis of knowledge of a disability. The amended order in this case clarified that the student had the right to remain at his specific school — not just any general education placement — throughout both the administrative and any judicial proceedings. If your child is ordered reinstated after a discipline dispute, the district cannot unilaterally move them to a different school as a substitute.