Probation Denied Incarcerated Student One Day of Special Ed — But Most Claims Failed

What Happened

Student is a 17-year-old with a specific learning disability and educationally related mental health needs who was incarcerated at Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall. While there, he attended Mt. McKinley School, which is operated by the Contra Costa County Office of Education inside the facility. During his time in Juvenile Hall, Student was repeatedly placed on security restriction — ranging from the least restrictive "Special Program" to the most restrictive "Maximum Security" — which sometimes prevented him from attending school or receiving visits from County educational aides. Parent filed a due process complaint against the Contra Costa County Probation Department, arguing that probation had denied Student a FAPE on nearly 200 days by blocking his access to special education, failing to develop appropriate IEPs, and refusing to conduct necessary assessments.

A prior hearing had already determined that Probation could be held legally responsible as a "public agency" under special education law during those specific periods when it actively prevented the County from providing educational services to Student. This hearing addressed whether Probation actually violated that responsibility and, if so, what remedies were owed.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ carefully reviewed County attendance logs, work logs kept by instructional aides, testimony from school staff, and Student's own testimony. Student claimed probation blocked his education on nearly 200 days; County's detailed work logs told a very different story. The logs showed that when Student did not attend Mt. McKinley, aides would call the housing unit and attempt to visit him there. According to those records, there were only four days during the relevant school years when Student could not attend school and needed in-unit tutoring — and on only one of those four days did Probation actually refuse to allow the County aide in to see Student. The ALJ found County's aide more credible than Student's testimony on this point.

The ALJ also found that Probation never blocked the delivery of counseling services — Student received school psychologist visits and mental health counseling in his housing unit regardless of his security status. Similarly, Probation never prevented County from assessing Student or holding IEP meetings. The failure to develop stronger IEPs with better goals, behavioral plans, or transition services was the County's responsibility, not Probation's — and County never claimed Probation stopped them from doing so.

On the one day Probation did block services, the ALJ rejected Probation's argument that safety concerns justified the denial. Probation failed to show that Student posed a genuine safety threat that would have made an aide visit unsafe. An expert witness testified that many safe options existed for providing instruction to students on security restriction. State regulations also require that education be provided to students even in high-security units. Probation's failure to plan adequate staffing for aide visits was its own problem — not an excuse to deny education.

What Was Ordered

1. As compensatory education for the one day of blocked specialized academic instruction, Probation must fund and ensure delivery of one hour of individual academic tutoring by a credentialed special education teacher or a certified non-public agency of Student's choice, to be completed by June 30, 2014.
2. Probation must keep accurate records of any time it cannot safely provide special education services to a ward on security restriction, including the specific reasons for blocking County access, and must comply with legal requirements for any exclusion lasting more than ten school days in a school year.

All other requests for relief — including compensatory counseling services, behavioral intervention services, and remedies for the alleged 200 lost days — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Documentation is everything in these cases. The parent's claim that nearly 200 days of education were lost collapsed because County's aide kept careful written logs that told a different story. If you believe your child is being denied services, start keeping your own detailed records — dates, who was contacted, what was said, and what happened — because institutional records may not tell the full story, and your child's word alone may not be enough.

2. Probation has a legal duty to educate incarcerated youth, but it's shared with the county school. This case confirms that a probation department can be held responsible as a "public agency" under special education law when it actively blocks educational services — but only for that specific blocking. The county office of education still holds primary responsibility for IEP development, assessments, placement decisions, and service delivery. Know which agency is responsible for which part of your child's education.

3. Security restrictions do not erase your child's right to special education. California regulations explicitly require that education be provided to students in high-security units. Probation cannot simply use a lockdown as a blanket reason to cut off all special education. If your incarcerated child is being denied services during a security restriction, ask in writing what alternative arrangements are being made — and document the response.

4. A formulaic request for compensatory education (like "two hours for every hour missed") requires research support to be awarded. Student's expert proposed double-time compensation, but the ALJ rejected it because it wasn't backed by research or evidence. When requesting compensatory education, tie the amount requested to your child's specific unmet needs and lost progress — not just a mathematical formula.