District Wins: Parents Who Block Assessments Cannot Then Claim FAPE Denial

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old boy with autism who had been receiving all of his education through a district-funded home-school program since approximately May 2010 — run by Mother and implemented by a home-school teacher Mother selected. Under a May 2010 settlement agreement between the parties, the district committed to completing a triennial reassessment in Spring 2013, including a psychoeducational evaluation, a behavior evaluation, and NPA-conducted speech/language and OT assessments. The settlement agreement specified that Parents' signature on the agreement itself constituted consent for these evaluations, and no additional assessment plan would be required.

The OT and speech/language assessments were completed by NPA providers as agreed. However, the psychoeducational and behavior assessments were never finished. The reason: Mother insisted that she be allowed to observe and hear every aspect of Student's assessment. The district refused, citing longstanding policy, concerns about test validity and integrity, and the risk of an altered testing environment. The district offered a compromise — Mother could observe through a window at Cameron School without hearing the test questions — but Mother declined. Without a mutually agreeable arrangement, the assessments were never conducted. Parents then filed for due process, claiming the district denied Student a FAPE by failing to complete the agreed-upon assessments, write adequate IEP present levels and goals, offer an appropriate placement, and by allegedly predetermining Student's placement. The district filed its own complaints seeking the right to complete the assessments without parental conditions and defending its speech/language assessment against Parents' request for an independent educational evaluation (IEE).

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor on every issue. On the central question of the blocked assessments, the ALJ found that Mother's demand to observe the assessments constituted an improper condition or restriction that the district was not legally obligated to accept. Federal and California law require parents who want their child to receive special education services to allow the district to assess the student — courts have held there is no exception to this rule. Because Parents effectively revoked their prior consent under the settlement agreement by imposing this condition, the district's failure to complete the psychoeducational and behavior assessments was caused by parental interference, not district inaction. The ALJ ordered Parents to make Student available for assessment within 30 days.

On the IEE requests, the ALJ found that the district's speech/language assessment — conducted by a qualified NPA pathologist using multiple standardized and criterion-referenced tools — was appropriate and comprehensive. Because the assessment was appropriate, Parents were not entitled to a publicly funded IEE in speech/language. For social skills, because the district had never been permitted to complete its own assessment, there was no district assessment for Parents to disagree with, and therefore no basis for an IEE at public expense.

On the IEP itself, the ALJ found that the district's goals were measurable and appropriate given the information available, that the IEP was not predetermined, and that the proposed placement at Anova (a nonpublic school serving only students with disabilities) was the least restrictive environment appropriate to Student's significant needs at the time. The ALJ acknowledged that Student had been out of any school setting for approximately three years, making a direct transition to a general education classroom unrealistic. Anova was described as a transitional placement subject to ongoing review.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
2. All of the district's requests were granted.
3. Parents must make Student available for the psychoeducational and behavior assessments within 30 days of the order. The district must contact Mother within five days to schedule mutually convenient dates.
4. The district must complete its assessments and hold a new IEP team meeting within 60 days of the order.
5. At the new IEP meeting, the district must review assessment results and make appropriate revisions to Student's placement and services.
6. If Parents fail to make Student available for the ordered assessments, the district has no further obligation to provide FAPE to Student.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. You cannot block a district assessment and then win on FAPE. The ALJ was direct: when Parents prevented the district from completing its evaluations by imposing conditions the district wasn't required to accept, they forfeited the ability to blame the district for any gaps in the IEP that resulted. If you believe an assessment will be conducted improperly, the legally recognized remedy is to allow it to happen and then request an IEE afterward — not to refuse access.

2. Parents have no legal right to observe or hear district assessments. Multiple witnesses testified that some agencies do allow parental observation, but the ALJ found that no law requires it. A district that has a consistent, long-standing policy against parents in the testing room — applied uniformly and with limited, documented exceptions — is not violating your rights by enforcing that policy.

3. You can only request an IEE for an assessment that actually exists. Parents requested an IEE for social skills, but because the district had never been allowed to complete a social skills assessment, there was nothing to disagree with. The right to an IEE is triggered by disagreement with a completed district assessment — not by a desire to have an area assessed differently before any district assessment occurs.

4. Parental non-cooperation can result in the district being excused from FAPE obligations entirely. The ALJ cited multiple federal court decisions holding that when parents obstruct the IEP process — including by refusing to allow required assessments — they may not be entitled to any remedy, and procedural violations in that process do not automatically constitute a FAPE denial. The final order went as far as saying that if Parents continued to refuse access for assessments, the district would have no further FAPE obligation.