District Wins Manifestation Determination After Student Assaulted Officer

A 15-year-old student with ADHD and a specific learning disability was recommended for expulsion after a prolonged confrontation with school staff and a police officer. His parents challenged the district's manifestation determination, arguing his conduct was caused by his ADHD. The ALJ found the district's determination was appropriate and dismissed the expedited portion of the case.

What Happened

A 15-year-old sophomore at Brea High School was eligible for special education under Other Health Impairment (OHI, based on ADHD) and Specific Learning Disability (SLD). He had a history of minor disciplinary incidents — using profanity, making threatening comments to a teacher, and defying school rules — but had been receiving counseling and support through his IEP since October 2012. In February 2013, he was called into the counselor's office over a food-throwing incident and what began as a routine meeting escalated dramatically: the student refused to surrender his cell phone, threatened to strike the assistant principal, physically shoved a police officer assigned to the school, and made repeated obscene and threatening statements throughout a nearly 30-minute confrontation. He told investigators afterward that he had refused to comply because he "disrespects authority."

Following the incident, the district conducted a manifestation determination review and concluded that the student's conduct was not caused by, nor did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, his disabilities. The student's parents challenged this determination, arguing that the district's 2012 assessment was flawed, the IEP was inadequate, and the student's ADHD — particularly his executive functioning deficits and poor impulse control — directly caused his behavior on February 21, 2013. They also raised procedural objections, including allegations that the outcome was predetermined. The ALJ sided with the district on all issues and dismissed the expedited case.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor and made the following key findings:

The student's conduct was not a manifestation of his ADHD. The district's school psychologist, Dr. Aguillon, was more persuasive than the parents' expert, Dr. Gunn. The incident lasted nearly 30 minutes, giving the student ample time to reconsider his actions. He told interviewers afterward that he deliberately chose to defy staff. His own statements and the testimony of multiple witnesses supported the conclusion that his behavior was willful, not impulsive.
The parents' expert's opinion was too broad to be credible. Dr. Gunn argued that both the student's impulsive moments and his calculated, goal-oriented refusals were products of ADHD — a definition so sweeping that it would make virtually any misconduct by a student with ADHD a manifestation of that disability. The ALJ found this interpretation defied common sense and was inconsistent with Congress's intent.
Dr. Gunn applied the wrong legal standard. Dr. Gunn's report emphasized that the district's years of inadequate interventions caused the incident — a standard that applied under pre-2006 law. Under current law, a manifestation review only asks two questions: (1) Was the conduct caused by the disability? (2) Did the district fail to implement the IEP? The appropriateness of the IEP is not part of the expedited inquiry.
The IEP was implemented. The student presented no evidence that the district failed to deliver his counseling sessions or other services under the October 2012 IEP.
No general education teacher was required at the manifestation meeting. Unlike a standard IEP meeting, the law only requires "relevant" IEP team members at a manifestation review. Since the incident did not occur in a general education classroom, there was no procedural violation.
Predetermination was not proven. A special education teacher could not remember whether the conclusion boxes on the manifestation form were pre-checked, but her uncertainty alone was insufficient to establish that the outcome had been predetermined.
The mother's participation rights were not violated. The district accommodated the mother by holding the meeting at her medical office, read the entire report aloud, and she asked questions and signed the document. The fact that she felt she had no choice does not constitute a procedural violation, particularly given that she had been provided her procedural safeguards and had access to an attorney.
The 2012 assessment had flaws but was not invalid. Dr. Aguillon improperly administered the BASC rating scale by having three teachers from two different grade levels complete it jointly, and administered the SAED to teachers who had known the student for less than two months. However, because Dr. Aguillon relied on multiple sources of information — not just those two tests — the flaws did not invalidate the overall assessment or the manifestation determination.

What Was Ordered

The student was not entitled to any relief on the expedited issue.
The expedited portion of the due process proceeding was dismissed.
The district's manifestation determination — finding the conduct was not a manifestation of the student's disability and was not caused by an IEP implementation failure — was upheld.
The non-expedited portion of the case (challenging the adequacy of the assessment and IEP) was reserved for a separate hearing at a later date.

Why This Matters for Parents

A diagnosis of ADHD does not automatically protect a student from expulsion. To succeed in a manifestation challenge, parents must show a direct and substantial connection between the specific conduct and the disability — not just that the student has ADHD. If a student had time to think, was warned repeatedly, and later said he acted on purpose, the disability connection is much harder to prove.
Current manifestation law is narrower than many parents realize. Since 2006, the only two questions at a manifestation review are: Was the conduct caused by the disability? Did the district fail to implement the IEP? Whether the IEP was good enough or whether the district should have done more over the years is not part of the expedited hearing — even if those failures are real and significant.
Document IEP implementation failures before a disciplinary crisis, not after. In this case, the parents had concerns about the IEP's adequacy, but no evidence that services were actually withheld. Keeping records of missed sessions, undelivered services, or IEP goals that were never addressed gives parents a much stronger foundation for a manifestation challenge.
Flawed assessments matter — but they may not be enough on their own. The parents' expert identified real problems with the district's psychological assessment, and the ALJ agreed some of those criticisms had merit. However, because the school psychologist used many other information sources, the flawed tests did not sink the whole case. If you believe an assessment is inadequate, request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) promptly — ideally before a disciplinary incident occurs.
Always exercise your procedural rights in writing, and do not rely on verbal assurances. The student's mother withdrew a detailed letter of concerns after a phone call with the school psychologist, allegedly after being told the letter could delay IEP implementation. Whether or not that pressure was improper, withdrawing written objections put the family in a weaker legal position. If you have concerns about your child's IEP, put them in writing and keep copies — do not withdraw them based on verbal promises.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor and made the following key findings:

The student's conduct was not a manifestation of his ADHD. The district's school psychologist, Dr. Aguillon, was more persuasive than the parents' expert, Dr. Gunn. The incident lasted nearly 30 minutes, giving the student ample time to reconsider his actions. He told interviewers afterward that he deliberately chose to defy staff. His own statements and the testimony of multiple witnesses supported the conclusion that his behavior was willful, not impulsive.
The parents' expert's opinion was too broad to be credible. Dr. Gunn argued that both the student's impulsive moments and his calculated, goal-oriented refusals were products of ADHD — a definition so sweeping that it would make virtually any misconduct by a student with ADHD a manifestation of that disability. The ALJ found this interpretation defied common sense and was inconsistent with Congress's intent.
Dr. Gunn applied the wrong legal standard. Dr. Gunn's report emphasized that the district's years of inadequate interventions caused the incident — a standard that applied under pre-2006 law. Under current law, a manifestation review only asks two questions: (1) Was the conduct caused by the disability? (2) Did the district fail to implement the IEP? The appropriateness of the IEP is not part of the expedited inquiry.
The IEP was implemented. The student presented no evidence that the district failed to deliver his counseling sessions or other services under the October 2012 IEP.
No general education teacher was required at the manifestation meeting. Unlike a standard IEP meeting, the law only requires "relevant" IEP team members at a manifestation review. Since the incident did not occur in a general education classroom, there was no procedural violation.
Predetermination was not proven. A special education teacher could not remember whether the conclusion boxes on the manifestation form were pre-checked, but her uncertainty alone was insufficient to establish that the outcome had been predetermined.
The mother's participation rights were not violated. The district accommodated the mother by holding the meeting at her medical office, read the entire report aloud, and she asked questions and signed the document. The fact that she felt she had no choice does not constitute a procedural violation, particularly given that she had been provided her procedural safeguards and had access to an attorney.
The 2012 assessment had flaws but was not invalid. Dr. Aguillon improperly administered the BASC rating scale by having three teachers from two different grade levels complete it jointly, and administered the SAED to teachers who had known the student for less than two months. However, because Dr. Aguillon relied on multiple sources of information — not just those two tests — the flaws did not invalidate the overall assessment or the manifestation determination.

What Was Ordered

The student was not entitled to any relief on the expedited issue.
The expedited portion of the due process proceeding was dismissed.
The district's manifestation determination — finding the conduct was not a manifestation of the student's disability and was not caused by an IEP implementation failure — was upheld.
The non-expedited portion of the case (challenging the adequacy of the assessment and IEP) was reserved for a separate hearing at a later date.

Why This Matters for Parents

A diagnosis of ADHD does not automatically protect a student from expulsion. To succeed in a manifestation challenge, parents must show a direct and substantial connection between the specific conduct and the disability — not just that the student has ADHD. If a student had time to think, was warned repeatedly, and later said he acted on purpose, the disability connection is much harder to prove.
Current manifestation law is narrower than many parents realize. Since 2006, the only two questions at a manifestation review are: Was the conduct caused by the disability? Did the district fail to implement the IEP? Whether the IEP was good enough or whether the district should have done more over the years is not part of the expedited hearing — even if those failures are real and significant.
Document IEP implementation failures before a disciplinary crisis, not after. In this case, the parents had concerns about the IEP's adequacy, but no evidence that services were actually withheld. Keeping records of missed sessions, undelivered services, or IEP goals that were never addressed gives parents a much stronger foundation for a manifestation challenge.
Flawed assessments matter — but they may not be enough on their own. The parents' expert identified real problems with the district's psychological assessment, and the ALJ agreed some of those criticisms had merit. However, because the school psychologist used many other information sources, the flawed tests did not sink the whole case. If you believe an assessment is inadequate, request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) promptly — ideally before a disciplinary incident occurs.
Always exercise your procedural rights in writing, and do not rely on verbal assurances. The student's mother withdrew a detailed letter of concerns after a phone call with the school psychologist, allegedly after being told the letter could delay IEP implementation. Whether or not that pressure was improper, withdrawing written objections put the family in a weaker legal position. If you have concerns about your child's IEP, put them in writing and keep copies — do not withdraw them based on verbal promises.