Autism Student Gets IEEs Ordered But Compensatory Ed Denied for Lack of Evidence

A parent filed a due process complaint against Compton Unified School District and the Los Angeles County Office of Education on behalf of her severely autistic teenage son, alleging multiple FAPE denials spanning three school years. The ALJ found the district and LACOE violated IDEA by failing to complete IEPs with respect to occupational therapy and speech services, failing to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability, and failing to specify a placement in the 2012 IEP. However, the parent's requests for compensatory education were denied because the parent failed to present sufficient evidence of the type, amount, and need for those services. The ALJ ordered four independent educational evaluations at district expense and monthly service logs for the parent.

What Happened

Student is a teenager with severe autism and significant developmental delays who functioned at approximately a two-year-old level. He lived in a group home and attended special education programs — first through the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) at two different schools, and then through Compton Unified School District alone beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. Parent held educational rights and attended all IEP meetings. The parent filed a due process complaint in January 2013, alleging that the district and LACOE had denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) across three school years by failing to assess him properly, writing defective IEPs, failing to follow through on promises made at IEP meetings, and predetermining his placement.

The case involved three annual IEPs — from May 2010, May 2011, and May 2012 — and a wide range of alleged violations, including missing assessments in occupational therapy (OT), speech and language (LAS), behavior, and transition; incomplete IEP documents; failure to hold promised follow-up IEP meetings; and a disputed placement change in fall 2012 when District moved Student out of a LACOE program and into a District classroom over Parent's objection.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ issued a mixed decision. Student prevailed on a significant number of issues, but the district and LACOE prevailed on the majority of claims. The most important findings against the respondents were:

Failure to complete IEPs regarding OT and speech services. All three IEPs noted that addendum meetings would be held to determine OT goals and frequency of services — and for speech services after the May 2011 IEP — but none of those follow-up meetings were ever held. The ALJ found this was not merely a failure to implement the IEP; the IEPs were simply never finished. Because the teams never agreed on OT goals or how often services would be provided, Student went without a clear plan for those services for years. This denied Student a FAPE.

Failure to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability. No triennial speech/language assessment was conducted, no OT assessment was performed for years, no behavior assessment was done despite behavioral concerns, and no transition or vocational assessment was completed. The ALJ found these failures — particularly the absence of a behavior assessment and OT reassessment — violated IDEA's requirement to assess in all areas of suspected disability.

Defective 2012 IEP regarding placement. The May 2012 IEP did not name a specific school or program for Student, did not include a statement of accommodations and modifications, and left OT services entirely unresolved. These failures impeded Parent's ability to meaningfully participate in placement decisions.

However, the ALJ rejected many of Parent's claims. The psychoeducational and APE assessments were found adequate. The speech and language services were substantially delivered. The IEP goals were appropriate given Student's needs at the time. The absence of a one-to-one aide and certain therapists at IEP meetings, while technically improper in some instances, did not rise to the level of a FAPE denial in most cases. The predetermination claim also failed — while District did not offer Parent's preferred LACOE program, Parent was given meaningful opportunities to observe and comment on placements before a decision was made.

Compensatory education was denied despite FAPE violations being found. The ALJ was explicit: Parent presented no expert testimony, no recent assessments, and no specific evidence about what compensatory services Student needed or how much. Without that evidence, the ALJ could not award compensatory OT or speech services — even though violations had occurred.

What Was Ordered

District must fund an independent psychoeducational evaluation (IEE), including an auditory processing assessment, selected by Student and conducted consistent with District criteria.
District must fund an independent OT evaluation (IEE).
District must fund an independent functional behavioral assessment (FBA), to be conducted at Student's school placement for the 2013-2014 school year within three weeks of enrollment.
District and LACOE must jointly fund an independent speech and language evaluation (IEE).
All independent assessors must be invited to attend the IEP meeting held to review their reports and must be paid a reasonable hourly rate for attendance, including travel time.
District must provide Parent with true and correct copies of all service provider logs on a monthly basis throughout the 2013-2014 school year.
All other relief requested by Student — including compensatory education services — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Promising a follow-up IEP meeting and never holding it is a FAPE violation. If an IEP says "an addendum meeting will be held" to determine services or goals, that meeting must actually happen. If it doesn't, the IEP is legally incomplete, and the district may be found to have denied FAPE — regardless of whether services were partially provided.
You must present specific evidence to win compensatory education. The ALJ found real FAPE violations but still denied compensatory services because Parent offered no expert testimony, no recent assessments, and no concrete proposal for what services were needed. If you are seeking compensatory education, bring an expert witness or independent assessor who can testify about the type, frequency, and duration of services your child needs to make up for what was lost.
Failing to assess in all areas of suspected disability is a serious violation — but courts look at impact. IDEA requires districts to assess students in every area where a disability is suspected. Here, the failure to conduct OT, behavior, and speech reassessments was a real problem. However, the ALJ only ordered IEEs rather than compensatory services — a reminder that the remedy is tied to the evidence you present.
An IEP that doesn't name a specific school or list accommodations can deny FAPE. The 2012 IEP referred only to "a District school" without specifying where Student would be placed, and did not list accommodations. The ALJ found this impeded Parent's ability to participate in the placement decision — a reminder that vague IEPs are legally vulnerable and worth challenging.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

District must fund an independent psychoeducational evaluation (IEE), including an auditory processing assessment, selected by Student and conducted consistent with District criteria.
District must fund an independent OT evaluation (IEE).
District must fund an independent functional behavioral assessment (FBA), to be conducted at Student's school placement for the 2013-2014 school year within three weeks of enrollment.
District and LACOE must jointly fund an independent speech and language evaluation (IEE).
All independent assessors must be invited to attend the IEP meeting held to review their reports and must be paid a reasonable hourly rate for attendance, including travel time.
District must provide Parent with true and correct copies of all service provider logs on a monthly basis throughout the 2013-2014 school year.
All other relief requested by Student — including compensatory education services — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Promising a follow-up IEP meeting and never holding it is a FAPE violation. If an IEP says "an addendum meeting will be held" to determine services or goals, that meeting must actually happen. If it doesn't, the IEP is legally incomplete, and the district may be found to have denied FAPE — regardless of whether services were partially provided.
You must present specific evidence to win compensatory education. The ALJ found real FAPE violations but still denied compensatory services because Parent offered no expert testimony, no recent assessments, and no concrete proposal for what services were needed. If you are seeking compensatory education, bring an expert witness or independent assessor who can testify about the type, frequency, and duration of services your child needs to make up for what was lost.
Failing to assess in all areas of suspected disability is a serious violation — but courts look at impact. IDEA requires districts to assess students in every area where a disability is suspected. Here, the failure to conduct OT, behavior, and speech reassessments was a real problem. However, the ALJ only ordered IEEs rather than compensatory services — a reminder that the remedy is tied to the evidence you present.
An IEP that doesn't name a specific school or list accommodations can deny FAPE. The 2012 IEP referred only to "a District school" without specifying where Student would be placed, and did not list accommodations. The ALJ found this impeded Parent's ability to participate in the placement decision — a reminder that vague IEPs are legally vulnerable and worth challenging.