Student's Fight with Principal Found Not a Manifestation of Her ADHD

A 16-year-old student with ADHD and a specific learning disability was suspended pending expulsion after she kicked and punched a school principal while trying to evade him following an on-campus fight. Her parents argued the conduct was a manifestation of her ADHD and that the district failed to implement her IEP. The ALJ ruled in favor of New Haven Unified School District on both issues, finding the student's actions were not caused by her ADHD and that her IEP had been properly implemented.

What Happened

A 16-year-old student with ADHD and a specific learning disability (SLD) attended James Logan High School in the New Haven Unified School District. She had transferred back into the district at the start of the 2012–2013 school year and received special education services through the resource specialist program. The night before the incident, she had been attacked at a McDonald's by another student (Girl 1). The following morning, October 26, 2012, she came to school wearing casual clothes — sweats and Ugg boots instead of her usual dress — and a fight broke out near the girls' locker room. When a school principal, Mr. Brar, approached her in the crowded hallway and directed her to stop, she repeatedly tried to evade him. When he reached out and grabbed her arm, she kicked him and punched him in the chest. She was suspended pending expulsion for assault and battery on a school employee, among other violations.

The district held a manifestation determination meeting and concluded the student's conduct was not related to her disability and that her IEP had been properly implemented. Parents disagreed, filed a due process complaint, and the parties entered a settlement requiring the district to convene a new manifestation determination meeting focused specifically on whether her ADHD caused the behavior. After that February 2013 meeting again found no manifestation, parents filed this expedited due process hearing, arguing that (1) her ADHD — specifically its impulsivity and executive functioning deficits — caused her to strike the principal, and (2) the district had failed to implement her 2011 behavior support plan (BSP) and 2012 behavior goal, making the conduct a direct result of an IEP implementation failure.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on both issues:

ADHD was not the cause of the student's conduct. The student's ADHD consistently manifested as talking in class, being disorganized, and socializing at inappropriate times — never as physical aggression. The ALJ credited the district's school psychologist and educator witnesses over the parent's private expert, finding that the student's actions were not impulsive in the ADHD sense. She had roughly 30–60 seconds during which she heard the principal's commands, saw him, recognized he was an authority figure, and still chose to evade and then strike him. This demonstrated a series of quick decisions — not disability-driven impulsivity. The ALJ also noted that the student came to school dressed for a fight, had told her case manager she "still wanted to fight more," and had successfully managed multiple stressful situations throughout the same week without losing control.
The district's failure to implement the 2011 BSP was not relevant. The student's operative IEP at the time of the incident was the September 24, 2012 IEP, to which her parent had consented in writing. When a student transfers districts between school years, the new district is not legally required to implement the prior IEP. The district created a new IEP within 30 days, and that IEP — not the prior Elk Grove IEP or BSP — governed the district's obligations.
The district did implement the September 2012 IEP, including the behavior goal. The case manager distributed an "IEP at a glance" to all teachers, met with the student weekly (often daily), and worked with teachers on specific strategies such as positive reinforcement, redirection, and seat changes. Teachers credibly testified that they knew and implemented the behavior goal by verbally redirecting the student and reinforcing appropriate responses to consequences. The district showed that a BSP was not required to implement a behavior goal.
The parent's expert was less persuasive than the district's. The private neuropsychologist relied heavily on parent and student self-report rating scales administered five months after the incident, did not obtain teacher rating scales, and failed to reconcile inconsistencies in the student's own account — including the student's admission that she tried to get past the principal. The ALJ found the district's school psychologist's reliance on historical records and behavioral patterns more reliable for a manifestation determination.

What Was Ordered

The parent's request for relief from the district's February 19, 2013 manifestation determination was denied.
The ALJ confirmed that the student's conduct on October 26, 2012 was not a manifestation of her ADHD or SLD.
The ALJ confirmed that the conduct was not a direct result of any failure by the district to implement the student's IEP.
The district was therefore permitted to proceed with disciplinary measures — including the expulsion process — in the same manner as for a non-disabled student.
No compensatory education, return to placement, or other relief was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child's new IEP replaces the old one — even a BSP. When a student transfers to a new district and the new district holds an IEP meeting that parents consent to, the new IEP becomes the operative document. If you have concerns about losing a behavior support plan, raise them before signing and ask for the BSP to be carried forward explicitly. Do not assume the old plan stays in force after you sign a new IEP.
Manifestation determinations look at patterns, not just the moment. ALJs and school psychologists give heavy weight to a student's documented history of how their disability actually manifests. If your child has ADHD but has never shown physical aggression, that history will likely be used to argue against a manifestation finding even in a sudden and emotional incident. Keep records of how your child's disability does manifest — in writing, across settings — so the full picture is clear.
Hiring an independent expert is valuable, but the expert must account for all the evidence. The parent's private neuropsychologist lost credibility partly because she did not reconcile inconsistencies in the student's own account and relied on data that wasn't available at the time of the incident. If you retain an expert, make sure they address contrary evidence head-on and use multiple sources of information — not just self-report scales.
A student's statements to school staff can be used as evidence against them. The student told her case manager shortly after the incident that she still wanted to fight. That statement was admitted as a party admission and significantly undermined her claim that the conduct was involuntary or disability-driven. Coach your child to be thoughtful about what they say to school staff immediately following a disciplinary incident.
Even without a formal BSP, a district can satisfy its IEP obligations for behavioral goals. This case confirms that a behavior goal in an IEP does not automatically require a BSP. If your child needs structured behavioral supports, advocate specifically for a BSP or a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) to be written into the IEP — not just a goal. A goal alone may be found sufficient to satisfy the district's legal obligations.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on both issues:

ADHD was not the cause of the student's conduct. The student's ADHD consistently manifested as talking in class, being disorganized, and socializing at inappropriate times — never as physical aggression. The ALJ credited the district's school psychologist and educator witnesses over the parent's private expert, finding that the student's actions were not impulsive in the ADHD sense. She had roughly 30–60 seconds during which she heard the principal's commands, saw him, recognized he was an authority figure, and still chose to evade and then strike him. This demonstrated a series of quick decisions — not disability-driven impulsivity. The ALJ also noted that the student came to school dressed for a fight, had told her case manager she "still wanted to fight more," and had successfully managed multiple stressful situations throughout the same week without losing control.
The district's failure to implement the 2011 BSP was not relevant. The student's operative IEP at the time of the incident was the September 24, 2012 IEP, to which her parent had consented in writing. When a student transfers districts between school years, the new district is not legally required to implement the prior IEP. The district created a new IEP within 30 days, and that IEP — not the prior Elk Grove IEP or BSP — governed the district's obligations.
The district did implement the September 2012 IEP, including the behavior goal. The case manager distributed an "IEP at a glance" to all teachers, met with the student weekly (often daily), and worked with teachers on specific strategies such as positive reinforcement, redirection, and seat changes. Teachers credibly testified that they knew and implemented the behavior goal by verbally redirecting the student and reinforcing appropriate responses to consequences. The district showed that a BSP was not required to implement a behavior goal.
The parent's expert was less persuasive than the district's. The private neuropsychologist relied heavily on parent and student self-report rating scales administered five months after the incident, did not obtain teacher rating scales, and failed to reconcile inconsistencies in the student's own account — including the student's admission that she tried to get past the principal. The ALJ found the district's school psychologist's reliance on historical records and behavioral patterns more reliable for a manifestation determination.

What Was Ordered

The parent's request for relief from the district's February 19, 2013 manifestation determination was denied.
The ALJ confirmed that the student's conduct on October 26, 2012 was not a manifestation of her ADHD or SLD.
The ALJ confirmed that the conduct was not a direct result of any failure by the district to implement the student's IEP.
The district was therefore permitted to proceed with disciplinary measures — including the expulsion process — in the same manner as for a non-disabled student.
No compensatory education, return to placement, or other relief was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child's new IEP replaces the old one — even a BSP. When a student transfers to a new district and the new district holds an IEP meeting that parents consent to, the new IEP becomes the operative document. If you have concerns about losing a behavior support plan, raise them before signing and ask for the BSP to be carried forward explicitly. Do not assume the old plan stays in force after you sign a new IEP.
Manifestation determinations look at patterns, not just the moment. ALJs and school psychologists give heavy weight to a student's documented history of how their disability actually manifests. If your child has ADHD but has never shown physical aggression, that history will likely be used to argue against a manifestation finding even in a sudden and emotional incident. Keep records of how your child's disability does manifest — in writing, across settings — so the full picture is clear.
Hiring an independent expert is valuable, but the expert must account for all the evidence. The parent's private neuropsychologist lost credibility partly because she did not reconcile inconsistencies in the student's own account and relied on data that wasn't available at the time of the incident. If you retain an expert, make sure they address contrary evidence head-on and use multiple sources of information — not just self-report scales.
A student's statements to school staff can be used as evidence against them. The student told her case manager shortly after the incident that she still wanted to fight. That statement was admitted as a party admission and significantly undermined her claim that the conduct was involuntary or disability-driven. Coach your child to be thoughtful about what they say to school staff immediately following a disciplinary incident.
Even without a formal BSP, a district can satisfy its IEP obligations for behavioral goals. This case confirms that a behavior goal in an IEP does not automatically require a BSP. If your child needs structured behavioral supports, advocate specifically for a BSP or a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) to be written into the IEP — not just a goal. A goal alone may be found sufficient to satisfy the district's legal obligations.