District Wins Right to Conduct Autism Assessment Over Parent's Partial Objection

San Luis Coastal Unified School District filed for due process after parents withdrew consent for one of two proposed assessors to administer the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS). The ALJ ruled that both proposed assessors were qualified, and ordered that parents must allow the district to conduct the autism assessment if they want their child to receive special education services. The district prevailed on the sole issue presented.

What Happened

Student is a 6-year-old boy who was already eligible for special education under the category of speech and language impairment. When Parents informed the district that Student would be attending a district school for the 2012-2013 school year, they also shared a private assessment showing Student had an autism spectrum disorder. In response, the district developed a comprehensive assessment plan in May 2012 to determine whether Student also qualified under the separate category of "autistic-like behaviors." Parents initially consented to the full plan, which included administering the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) — a specialized evaluation tool commonly used in autism assessments — with two district school psychologists working together.

Shortly before the assessment was to take place, Parents withdrew their consent specifically for one of the two psychologists to participate. Their concern was based on a prior incident: they believed that psychologist had previously promised to assess Student at a 2010 IEP meeting and failed to do so. The district filed for due process to obtain the right to proceed with both assessors as originally planned. At the hearing, the district clarified that the psychologist Parents objected to would only be assisting — observing and taking notes — while the other psychologist would lead the assessment and write the report. Upon learning this, Parents agreed to allow the assessment to proceed. The ALJ still issued a formal ruling affirming the district's right to conduct the evaluation.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on the single issue before the hearing: whether the proposed assessors were trained and qualified to administer the ADOS. Parents themselves stipulated (agreed) at the hearing that the psychologist they had objected to was qualified based on her education and experience. The ALJ confirmed that the ADOS is an appropriate tool for evaluating autism eligibility and that it can properly be administered by two people working together.

The ALJ also addressed a key legal principle: parents cannot use their consent rights as a tool to force a school district to rely only on a private evaluation. Under federal and state law, if parents want their child to receive special education services, they must allow the district to conduct its own assessment. Withdrawing consent for a qualified assessor — without a legitimate legal basis — does not give parents the ability to block the district's evaluation process. The prior dispute between Parents and the psychologist in question was a separate matter handled in a different case, and the ALJ made no findings about that history here.

What Was Ordered

The district's request to conduct the ADOS assessment using both school psychologists — Ms. Johnson as the lead assessor and Ms. Corcoran as the assistant — was granted.
If Parents wish for Student to be considered for special education services by the district, they must make Student available for the ADOS administration in accordance with the May 4, 2012 assessment plan.

Why This Matters for Parents

You generally cannot block a district assessment by withdrawing consent for a specific assessor. Under IDEA and California law, if you want your child to receive special education services from the district, you must allow the district to conduct its own evaluation. Courts have consistently held that parents cannot force a school to rely solely on a private assessment.
Your concerns about an assessor's past conduct belong in a separate complaint — not a consent withdrawal. In this case, Parents had a legitimate grievance about a prior broken promise by one assessor. But that dispute was handled as a separate complaint. Mixing a past conflict with a consent decision can weaken your legal position and may not be the right vehicle for resolving that grievance.
Ask the district to clarify each assessor's role in writing before the assessment begins. Here, Parents did not know until the hearing that one psychologist was only an assistant observer. Had they known this earlier, the dispute might have been resolved without litigation. Always request a clear explanation of who will do what during an evaluation.
Sharing a private assessment with the district can trigger the district's obligation to assess. When Parents shared their private autism evaluation, the district used it as the basis for expanding Student's assessment. Be aware that sharing outside evaluations can — and often should — prompt the district to reassess your child's eligibility under additional categories.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district's request to conduct the ADOS assessment using both school psychologists — Ms. Johnson as the lead assessor and Ms. Corcoran as the assistant — was granted.
If Parents wish for Student to be considered for special education services by the district, they must make Student available for the ADOS administration in accordance with the May 4, 2012 assessment plan.

Why This Matters for Parents

You generally cannot block a district assessment by withdrawing consent for a specific assessor. Under IDEA and California law, if you want your child to receive special education services from the district, you must allow the district to conduct its own evaluation. Courts have consistently held that parents cannot force a school to rely solely on a private assessment.
Your concerns about an assessor's past conduct belong in a separate complaint — not a consent withdrawal. In this case, Parents had a legitimate grievance about a prior broken promise by one assessor. But that dispute was handled as a separate complaint. Mixing a past conflict with a consent decision can weaken your legal position and may not be the right vehicle for resolving that grievance.
Ask the district to clarify each assessor's role in writing before the assessment begins. Here, Parents did not know until the hearing that one psychologist was only an assistant observer. Had they known this earlier, the dispute might have been resolved without litigation. Always request a clear explanation of who will do what during an evaluation.
Sharing a private assessment with the district can trigger the district's obligation to assess. When Parents shared their private autism evaluation, the district used it as the basis for expanding Student's assessment. Be aware that sharing outside evaluations can — and often should — prompt the district to reassess your child's eligibility under additional categories.