District Wins FAPE Case After Father Repeatedly Skips IEP Meetings and Student Stops Attending School

What Happened

Student is a 10-year-old boy who has been eligible for special education since 2009, originally qualifying under speech and language impairment. He enrolled in Long Beach Unified School District in 2010 and attended his neighborhood school, Prisk Elementary. Over time, Student accumulated a pattern of chronic tardiness and absences, which Father attributed to ADHD, allergies, asthma, and other health conditions. In fall 2012, the district conducted a triennial assessment and convened an IEP meeting on October 1, 2012. Father attended and consented to that IEP, which placed Student in a mild/moderate special day class at Prisk for 100% of his academic day. Despite the new placement, Student's attendance did not improve. After January 17, 2013, Student stopped attending school entirely — and there was no credible evidence he was too ill to attend. A police wellness check found him playing happily in the front yard. Father submitted a request for home and hospital instruction, but the district found the form had been altered and that the signing physician later told district staff she had not prepared the form and had not made the diagnoses listed on it.

The district attempted to convene another IEP meeting in April 2013 to address attendance and the father's requests for independent educational evaluations (IEEs), but Father walked out almost immediately after arriving. The district agreed to fund IEEs in psychoeducational and speech-language areas and sent written notice, but Father never obtained them. The district then held the annual IEP meeting on September 26, 2013. Father was properly notified but did not attend and gave no prior notice he would not be there. The district rescheduled the meeting for November 2013; Father said he would attend but did not show up and again gave no notice. The district continued attempting to reach Father by phone approximately once a week through December 2013, without success. Father never consented to the September 26, 2013 IEP.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. Because Student had been almost entirely absent since October 2012, the IEP team had no new information about his academic progress or present levels of performance. The district reasonably offered the same program as the consented-to October 2012 IEP — including placement in the special day class at Prisk, the same annual goals, and the same accommodations. The ALJ found this approach was appropriate given the circumstances: the 2012 assessments were still legally valid, and Student's lack of progress was caused by his nonattendance, not by any deficiency in the program itself.

On the procedural question of whether the district violated the IDEA by holding the IEP without Father present, the ALJ distinguished this case from a recent Ninth Circuit ruling (Doug C. v. Hawaii) that found a similar practice unlawful. Here, Father had not affirmatively expressed a desire to attend the September meeting before it was held, did not respond to the district's phone call the day of the meeting, and then failed to attend the rescheduled meeting despite telling the district he would be there. The ALJ concluded the district had demonstrated it was unable to obtain Father's participation and that Father had essentially refused to engage with the process.

The ALJ also found the district's assessments legally sufficient — administered by qualified personnel, using validated instruments, covering all areas of suspected disability, and not racially or culturally discriminatory. Although there was insufficient evidence about the specific instruments used in the speech-language assessment, that issue was deemed irrelevant because speech-language services were not part of the disputed September 2013 IEP.

What Was Ordered

1. The September 26, 2013 IEP was found to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
2. The district was authorized to implement the September 26, 2013 IEP without parental consent if Student returns to school and remains enrolled in the district.
3. The student's requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Attending IEP meetings is one of your most important rights — and responsibilities. When a parent repeatedly misses IEP meetings without valid notice or follow-through, a district may legally hold those meetings and develop an IEP without the parent present. Participating in the IEP process is the best way to protect your child's educational rights.

2. A student's lack of progress does not automatically mean the IEP was wrong. In this case, the ALJ found that Student would likely have made progress in his special day class placement had he attended school. When a child is chronically absent, courts will examine whether the program itself was flawed — not just whether the child made gains.

3. If you request IEEs, follow through. The district in this case agreed to fund independent educational evaluations in multiple areas. Because Father never obtained them, there was no independent evidence to challenge the district's assessments. IEEs are a powerful tool, but only if you use them.

4. Documentation submitted to the district must be accurate. The home-hospital instruction request in this case was found to have been altered, and the physician listed on the form later told district staff she had not prepared it. Submitting questionable documentation seriously undermines a parent's credibility throughout the entire process.