District Failed Child Find Obligations for Student with ADHD and Learning Disabilities

A student with ADHD, auditory processing disorder, and learning disabilities spent an entire school year failing while Santa Barbara Unified School District kept pushing general education interventions instead of referring him for a special education assessment. The ALJ found the District violated its child find obligation and denied the student a FAPE from August 2010 through September 2011. The District was ordered to provide 180 hours of compensatory reading tutoring and six hours of child find training for all staff.

What Happened

Student is a teenager who was born addicted to heroin and raised by his grandmother (Parent), a public school teacher. He had been medically diagnosed with ADHD as early as 2004, when the District assessed him for special education. Despite assessment results that showed he was off-task 95% of the time and scored in ranges suggesting both ADHD and emotional disturbance, the IEP team at that time did not find him eligible for special education. Years later, as Student entered eighth grade, his grades and behavior deteriorated sharply. He was failing multiple classes, receiving repeated disciplinary referrals, being suspended, and expressing frustration that he could not keep up in school. Despite all of this, the District responded only with general education interventions — including a homework completion program, elective support classes, and a student study team (SST) meeting — rather than referring him for a special education assessment.

It was not until Parent herself showed up to an April 2011 SST meeting with a written request for a special education assessment that the District finally agreed to evaluate Student. He was assessed in September 2011 and found eligible for special education that same month. Parent filed for due process, arguing that the District should have identified Student as potentially disabled and referred him for assessment far earlier — at least by August 2010 — and that its delay denied him a full year of special education services he needed. Parent also challenged a later IEP team meeting in August 2012, arguing the District had predetermined its placement offer.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the District violated its child find obligation — the legal duty to actively identify students who may have a disability and need special education. By August 2010, the District had substantial evidence that Student was in serious trouble: a prior 2004 assessment noting ADHD and possible emotional disturbance, rapidly declining grades, multiple suspensions, and a pattern of behavior problems across all of his classes. His teachers' own notes described him as inattentive, unmotivated, failing, and writing "I hate my life" on assignments. The District's special education director reviewed Student's file — including the 2004 evaluation — at a December 2010 SST meeting, but neither he nor anyone else considered whether Student's struggles might be related to a disability.

Instead of referring Student for assessment, the District repeatedly cycled him through higher and higher levels of its general education intervention system. By the time the December 2010 SST meeting occurred, Student was already enrolled in the two highest-level intervention programs the school offered, and still failing. The follow-up SST meeting recommended in December 2010 wasn't held until more than four months later — and even then, it took Parent's own written demand to get the District to act. The ALJ found this delay impeded Student's right to a FAPE and caused a concrete loss of educational benefits for the entire 2010–2011 school year.

On the second issue, the ALJ found no predetermination at the August 2012 IEP team meeting. The meeting lasted over three and a half hours, included 18 participants, and involved genuine collaborative discussion of assessments, goals, and placement options. Parent, Student, and their attorney all participated actively, and many of their suggestions were incorporated into the proposed IEP. The District's verbal offer of placement at the comprehensive high school was made only at the end of the meeting when it became clear the team could not reconvene before school started — not because the District had made up its mind beforehand. The District prevailed on this issue.

What Was Ordered

The District must provide Student with 180 hours of compensatory one-to-one tutoring in reading fluency and comprehension (in a program such as Lindamood Bell), to be completed no later than June 30, 2014. This must be provided even if Student is no longer enrolled in the District, and the District must pay for transportation if needed.
The District must provide six hours of child find training for all District staff — including non-credentialed staff — no later than September 1, 2013. The training must be conducted by qualified individuals who are not District or SELPA employees.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot hide behind general education interventions forever. The law allows schools to try general education supports before referring a student for special education assessment — but those interventions cannot be used to indefinitely delay an evaluation. If interventions clearly aren't working, the district must act. In this case, Student was placed at the very top of the school's intervention pyramid and still failing, which should have triggered a referral.
Old evaluations count as notice. Even a years-old assessment that didn't result in eligibility can put a district on legal notice that a student may have a disability. The 2004 evaluation here showed ADHD and possible emotional disturbance — and the ALJ found that information should have caused the District to suspect Student needed assessment when he later began to struggle severely.
You don't have to wait for the district to ask. Parents can — and sometimes must — make a written request for a special education assessment. In this case, it was Parent's written demand at the April 2011 SST meeting that finally moved the District to act. Putting requests in writing creates a clear record and starts legal timelines.
A long, active IEP meeting is not the same as predetermination. For a predetermination claim to succeed, there must be evidence the district decided on placement before the meeting and wasn't open to other options. Here, even though Parent was unhappy with the District's offer, the IEP team had genuinely deliberated — so the claim failed. If you believe predetermination occurred, document any conversations or communications that happened before the meeting that suggest the decision was already made.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The District must provide Student with 180 hours of compensatory one-to-one tutoring in reading fluency and comprehension (in a program such as Lindamood Bell), to be completed no later than June 30, 2014. This must be provided even if Student is no longer enrolled in the District, and the District must pay for transportation if needed.
The District must provide six hours of child find training for all District staff — including non-credentialed staff — no later than September 1, 2013. The training must be conducted by qualified individuals who are not District or SELPA employees.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot hide behind general education interventions forever. The law allows schools to try general education supports before referring a student for special education assessment — but those interventions cannot be used to indefinitely delay an evaluation. If interventions clearly aren't working, the district must act. In this case, Student was placed at the very top of the school's intervention pyramid and still failing, which should have triggered a referral.
Old evaluations count as notice. Even a years-old assessment that didn't result in eligibility can put a district on legal notice that a student may have a disability. The 2004 evaluation here showed ADHD and possible emotional disturbance — and the ALJ found that information should have caused the District to suspect Student needed assessment when he later began to struggle severely.
You don't have to wait for the district to ask. Parents can — and sometimes must — make a written request for a special education assessment. In this case, it was Parent's written demand at the April 2011 SST meeting that finally moved the District to act. Putting requests in writing creates a clear record and starts legal timelines.
A long, active IEP meeting is not the same as predetermination. For a predetermination claim to succeed, there must be evidence the district decided on placement before the meeting and wasn't open to other options. Here, even though Parent was unhappy with the District's offer, the IEP team had genuinely deliberated — so the claim failed. If you believe predetermination occurred, document any conversations or communications that happened before the meeting that suggest the decision was already made.