Parent's FAPE Claims Barred by Prior Settlement Agreement — LAUSD Prevails

A parent filed a due process complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District alleging denial of FAPE based on incomplete occupational therapy services and failure to hold an annual IEP meeting during the 2012-2013 school year. The ALJ ruled that the parent had waived all FAPE claims through the end of that school year under a prior settlement agreement, depriving OAH of jurisdiction. Alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, the parent failed to prove a FAPE denial on either issue because the parent herself had withdrawn Student from OT services and the IEP meeting claim was barred by the waiver period.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old with a traumatic brain injury resulting from a near-accidental drowning in September 2009. She attended Fusion Academy, a private school, during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. In 2011, Parent had previously filed a due process complaint against the District, and the parties settled that dispute in a written agreement dated June 24, 2011. Under that settlement, the District agreed to fund Student's placement at Fusion Academy and provide occupational therapy (OT), counseling, and speech and language services. Critically, the agreement also contained a full waiver of all FAPE claims through the end of the 2012-2013 school year and specified that the agreed services did not constitute an offer of FAPE.

In July 2013, Parent filed a new due process complaint alleging that the District denied Student a FAPE during the 2012-2013 school year by: (1) failing to deliver all of the OT services promised in the settlement agreement, and (2) failing to convene an annual IEP meeting. The OT issue arose after Student received only about 2.5 hours of OT in early 2013 before Parent told the assigned therapist that Student would no longer work with him — but Parent never followed up with the District in writing or requested a different therapist. The IEP meeting issue arose because no annual review was held during the 2012-2013 school year, leaving Parent to unilaterally enroll Student at a new charter high school for the 2013-2014 school year.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on both issues, primarily because the 2011 settlement agreement barred all FAPE claims for the period in dispute.

On the jurisdiction question, the ALJ found that the settlement agreement was unambiguous: Parent had waived all FAPE claims under the IDEA through the end of the 2012-2013 school year, and the agreement explicitly stated that the services provided were not an offer of FAPE. Because this was a pure settlement enforcement dispute — not a FAPE dispute — OAH lacked jurisdiction. The proper avenue for addressing a violation of the settlement agreement was a compliance complaint filed with the California Department of Education, not a new due process hearing.

On the OT services claim, the ALJ found that even if OAH had jurisdiction, Parent had not proven a FAPE denial. The evidence showed that it was Parent, not the District, who unilaterally ended Student's OT sessions by telling the therapist Student would not return — without any written follow-up to the District. The District had a therapist available and willing to provide services. The ALJ also rejected Parent's argument that the District was required to provide prior written notice before stopping services, finding that the regulation cited (34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(4)) applies only when a parent completely withdraws consent for all special education services, which did not happen here.

On the IEP meeting claim, the ALJ found that the settlement agreement required an IEP meeting by June 2013, not February 2013 as Parent believed. More importantly, because Parent had waived all FAPE claims for this period, any failure to hold an IEP meeting during the 2012-2013 school year was also barred. The ALJ noted that even under the legal principle that districts must continue developing IEPs even when parents are uncooperative, Student's complaint was expressly limited to the waiver period — so no relief was available.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Settlement agreements are binding waivers — read them very carefully before signing. If a settlement agreement says you are waiving FAPE claims for a specific period, a later due process hearing during that period will likely be dismissed. Make sure you fully understand what rights you are giving up before you sign.
Settlement enforcement belongs in a different forum. If a district fails to deliver services it promised in a settlement agreement, the proper remedy is usually a compliance complaint with the California Department of Education — not a new due process hearing. Knowing which door to knock on can save you significant time and legal expense.
If you have a problem with a service provider, follow up in writing with the district immediately. In this case, Parent verbally told a therapist that Student would not return, but never contacted the District in writing to request a new therapist or resolve the problem. That informal communication was found insufficient to put the obligation back on the District. Always put concerns about services in writing, directed to the district — not just to the provider.
The IDEA's procedural protections apply to standard IEP services, not necessarily to services promised in a settlement. Parent argued the District needed to give written notice before stopping OT. The ALJ found this rule only applies when a parent withdraws consent for all special education — not to a service dispute under a settlement agreement. Services agreed to in a settlement are governed by contract law, not necessarily the full procedural machinery of the IDEA.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on both issues, primarily because the 2011 settlement agreement barred all FAPE claims for the period in dispute.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Settlement agreements are binding waivers — read them very carefully before signing. If a settlement agreement says you are waiving FAPE claims for a specific period, a later due process hearing during that period will likely be dismissed. Make sure you fully understand what rights you are giving up before you sign.
Settlement enforcement belongs in a different forum. If a district fails to deliver services it promised in a settlement agreement, the proper remedy is usually a compliance complaint with the California Department of Education — not a new due process hearing. Knowing which door to knock on can save you significant time and legal expense.
If you have a problem with a service provider, follow up in writing with the district immediately. In this case, Parent verbally told a therapist that Student would not return, but never contacted the District in writing to request a new therapist or resolve the problem. That informal communication was found insufficient to put the obligation back on the District. Always put concerns about services in writing, directed to the district — not just to the provider.
The IDEA's procedural protections apply to standard IEP services, not necessarily to services promised in a settlement. Parent argued the District needed to give written notice before stopping OT. The ALJ found this rule only applies when a parent withdraws consent for all special education — not to a service dispute under a settlement agreement. Services agreed to in a settlement are governed by contract law, not necessarily the full procedural machinery of the IDEA.