District Wins Right to Place Emotionally Disturbed Teen in Texas RTC Over Father's Objection

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. He had a long history of behavioral challenges, including physical aggression, defiance, substance abuse, and self-harm. He had been served through Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) programs for years, most recently at Malaga Cove, a specialized campus for students with emotional disturbance who were at risk of needing residential placement. During the 2011-2012 school year, Student's situation deteriorated significantly: he was hospitalized after a Xanax overdose, disclosed to a mental health assessor that he had cut himself over 30 times, was rarely completing schoolwork (as little as 5% of assignments), and was repeatedly suspended for aggression and defiance. In November 2011, the IEP team — including the father — agreed to begin searching for a residential treatment center (RTC). Student was ultimately admitted to Devereaux, an RTC in Texas, in February 2012.

Father removed Student from Devereaux in June 2012, concerned that Student was unhappy, possibly being mistreated, and too old to benefit from the program. The district disagreed, maintaining that Student had begun making progress at Devereaux and that the discharge was premature. Because Father refused to consent to the continued placement, the district filed for due process, seeking an order authorizing it to implement the Devereaux placement without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor. The hearing officer found that the district had complied with all procedural requirements under the IDEA: Father received proper notice, attended all key IEP meetings, and actively participated in developing Student's educational program — including agreeing to search for an RTC in November 2011. The IEP contained the required components, including present levels of performance, measurable goals, a behavior support plan, and a transition plan.

On the substance, the ALJ found that the Devereaux placement was appropriate and constituted the least restrictive environment given Student's unique needs. A licensed clinical social worker from the Department of Mental Health had assessed Student in October 2011 and credibly testified that outpatient services had repeatedly failed, and that a residential placement for at least six months was necessary. At Devereaux, Student was taking academic courses, beginning to complete classwork, engaging in individual and group therapy, and showing early signs of progress before Father pulled him out. The ALJ also rejected Father's mistreatment concerns, finding that the evidence suggested Student himself had likely fabricated or manufactured the alleged incidents in order to come home — a behavior the ALJ noted was common among adolescents in RTC settings who are lonely and want to return home.

Father's broader arguments — that the RTC was overdue and that prior LACOE placements had failed Student for years — were not addressed on the merits because Father had never filed his own due process complaint raising those issues.

What Was Ordered

1. The district's offer of placement at Devereaux, as contained in the October 27, 2011 IEP and its subsequent amendments, constituted a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment.
2. The district was authorized to implement the IEP and the Devereaux placement without parental consent, unless and until the father formally revoked consent for special education services in writing — which would have relieved the district of all obligations to provide services.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts can go to court to override your refusal of a placement — if they believe it is necessary for FAPE. Under California law, when a parent refuses to consent to a placement the district believes is required to provide FAPE, the district can file for due process and ask a hearing officer to authorize the placement without your consent. This is different from most due process cases, which are filed by parents.

2. Agreeing to "search" for a placement in an IEP can be used as evidence that you agreed the placement type was appropriate. Father consented to beginning the RTC search in November 2011. The ALJ used this, among other facts, to support the conclusion that an RTC was appropriate. Be thoughtful about what you sign at IEP meetings, and consider writing "consent to search only, not to any specific placement" if that reflects your intent.

3. Concerns about mistreatment at an out-of-state placement are difficult to prove and easy to dismiss. The ALJ found Father's concerns about Devereaux unpersuasive, in part because the district did not conduct a thorough independent investigation but also because the evidence did not definitively establish that mistreatment occurred. If you have serious concerns about your child's safety at an RTC, document everything and consider requesting an independent investigation in writing.

4. If you believe a district has been failing your child for years in the wrong placements, you must file your own due process complaint to raise those issues. Father argued that Student had been passed along without a real education for years. The ALJ refused to consider this because Father had never filed his own complaint. Past failures can be time-barred if not raised promptly — generally within two years of when you knew or should have known about the problem.