District Ignored Child Find Duties for Boy with Neurofibromatosis, Denied FAPE for Years

A Morgan Hill Unified parent filed for due process after the district repeatedly refused to assess her son — a child with Neurofibromatosis Type I and a prior PDD diagnosis — despite clear signs of academic struggle throughout second grade. The ALJ found the district violated its child find duty, failed to timely identify the student as eligible for special education, and then failed to address his academic and language needs even after finding him eligible. The district was ordered to provide compensatory speech-language therapy, academic tutoring, and fund an independent occupational therapy evaluation.

What Happened

The student, a ten-year-old boy, was diagnosed before his first birthday with Neurofibromatosis Type I — a genetic condition that can cause developmental delays, learning disorders, seizures, and ADHD. He had a history of early speech delays, had received special education services as a toddler, and had been retained in first grade due to academic struggles. When his mother enrolled him at Morgan Hill Unified for second grade in fall 2012, she immediately informed the school of his diagnoses and her concerns about his academic delays. From the very start of second grade, the student was below grade level in reading, math, and writing, produced largely illegible work, struggled to pay attention, and became increasingly frustrated in class. His second-grade teacher suspected he needed special education and told the parent as much — but instead of referring him for assessment, the district required her to first go through a multi-step "student study team" process. That process took four months just to schedule a meeting, by which point the school year was nearly over.

When the parent submitted a written request for a special education assessment in March 2013, the district denied it — citing a 16-month-old evaluation from a prior district that had found the student ineligible. The parent had to file a complaint with the California Department of Education before Morgan Hill finally provided an assessment plan in May 2013. Testing confirmed the student had significant needs across academics, language, fine motor skills, and articulation. At a June 2013 IEP meeting, the district found him eligible for special education only under the category of "articulation disorder" and offered speech therapy for articulation, plus some occupational therapy — but refused to provide any academic support or language services beyond articulation. The parent filed for due process in February 2015 after years of the district continuing to deny academic and language services.

What the District Did Wrong

Violated its child find duty. The district had enough reason by November 26, 2012 — before the statutory period even began — to refer the student for a special education assessment. His below-grade-level reading (after already repeating first grade), illegible writing, math struggles, attention difficulties, and known diagnoses were more than sufficient. The ALJ found that the district should have provided an assessment plan by December 11, 2012, and convened an IEP meeting by February 25, 2013 — three months before it actually did.
Used its "student study team" process to delay required action. The district's internal protocol required teachers to go through multiple intervention tiers before referring a student for special education assessment. The ALJ found this practice caused unlawful delay and that the district's own staff did not understand their legal child find obligations. The resource specialist of 35 years admitted she was not familiar with child find law.
Wrongly refused to assess after parent's written request. When the parent formally requested an assessment in March 2013, the district refused in writing — citing a stale prior evaluation — without providing the required copy of procedural safeguards. The district only agreed to assess after the parent filed a complaint with the California Department of Education.
Failed to identify all of the student's areas of need after finding him eligible. Even after finding the student eligible in June 2013, the district treated the articulation disorder as the only area requiring services. It did not identify or address his documented needs in academics (reading, writing, math, spelling, sentence composition), language (expressive vocabulary, sentence structure, word relationships), or auditory processing. The ALJ found this was a fundamental misunderstanding of the IDEA's requirement to address all disability-related needs.
Wrongly believed a student "performing at cognitive ability" doesn't need special education services. The district argued that because the student's academic scores roughly matched his IQ, he didn't need academic support. The ALJ flatly rejected this, finding no legal basis for the position and noting the IDEA does not allow districts to set their own narrower definition of "need."
Failed to provide adequate occupational therapy during the 2013–2014 school year. The student's handwriting actually regressed during that year — going from writing a paragraph with moderate prompting to needing maximum prompting just to start a writing task. The ALJ found the district's occupational therapy services were insufficient to meet his fine motor needs.
Failed to address language needs beyond articulation for over two years. From February 25, 2013 through April 29, 2015, the district offered no services targeting the student's significant deficits in expressive vocabulary, sentence structure, and understanding word relationships — even though its own speech-language pathologist's assessment identified these needs.

What Was Ordered

39 hours of compensatory individual language therapy — delivered in 30–60 minute sessions, up to twice per week, by a credentialed speech-language pathologist — to address expressive/receptive language, sentence structure, word relationships, and vocabulary. Sessions must be completed by December 31, 2016, outside of regular school hours unless both parties agree otherwise, and cannot substitute for any language services in a future IEP.
19.5 hours of language consultation services — provided by a credentialed speech-language pathologist to the student's classroom teacher, to help implement language strategies in the classroom.
107.5 hours of compensatory academic tutoring — in reading, math, spelling, and writing — to be provided by a certified nonpublic agency or credentialed special education teacher of the parent's choice. The student has until the end of the 2016–2017 school year to use these hours.
Independent occupational therapy evaluation — funded by the district — to determine what OT services the student currently needs. The parent selects the evaluator within the district's IEE criteria.
IEP team meeting funded by the district to review the independent OT evaluation results, with the district required to consider those results in formulating the student's next IEP.
Transportation reimbursement at the federal mileage rate for one round trip per session for both the language therapy and academic tutoring services.
Tutoring reimbursement denied — the parent sought reimbursement for private tutoring already paid for, but introduced no evidence of the actual costs, so this request was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot use intervention tiers as a shield against assessment. Multi-step "student study team" or "RTI" processes are legitimate tools, but they cannot be used to indefinitely delay a special education assessment when a child clearly shows signs of disability. If your child is significantly behind and showing signs of a disability, you have the right to request a formal assessment in writing at any time — and the district must respond within legal timelines, regardless of where the child is in any intervention process.
Put your assessment request in writing and keep copies. This parent had to file a state complaint before the district would agree to assess. When you request an assessment, do it in writing, keep a copy, and note the date. If the district refuses, it must give you written notice explaining why — and it must include a copy of your procedural rights. If it doesn't, that's a procedural violation you can raise.
Eligibility under one category does not limit the services a child can receive. Once your child qualifies for special education under any category — even just an articulation disorder — the district must identify and address all of your child's disability-related needs. The district cannot limit goals and services only to the area that triggered eligibility. Push for a comprehensive needs assessment and make sure the IEP addresses every documented area of difficulty.
"Performing at cognitive level" is not a legal reason to deny services. Districts sometimes argue that a child who is achieving at a level consistent with their IQ doesn't need special education support. Courts have repeatedly rejected this argument. If your child is struggling and has a disability, the fact that their grades or test scores match their measured "ability" does not eliminate their right to specialized instruction and support.
Document regression — it matters for proving inadequate services. The student's writing actually got worse while he was receiving occupational therapy, and that regression was central to the ALJ's finding that the OT services were inadequate. Keep records of your child's work samples, report cards, and teacher communications over time. If your child stops making progress or loses skills, document it carefully — that evidence can support a claim for more or better services and compensatory education.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Violated its child find duty. The district had enough reason by November 26, 2012 — before the statutory period even began — to refer the student for a special education assessment. His below-grade-level reading (after already repeating first grade), illegible writing, math struggles, attention difficulties, and known diagnoses were more than sufficient. The ALJ found that the district should have provided an assessment plan by December 11, 2012, and convened an IEP meeting by February 25, 2013 — three months before it actually did.
Used its "student study team" process to delay required action. The district's internal protocol required teachers to go through multiple intervention tiers before referring a student for special education assessment. The ALJ found this practice caused unlawful delay and that the district's own staff did not understand their legal child find obligations. The resource specialist of 35 years admitted she was not familiar with child find law.
Wrongly refused to assess after parent's written request. When the parent formally requested an assessment in March 2013, the district refused in writing — citing a stale prior evaluation — without providing the required copy of procedural safeguards. The district only agreed to assess after the parent filed a complaint with the California Department of Education.
Failed to identify all of the student's areas of need after finding him eligible. Even after finding the student eligible in June 2013, the district treated the articulation disorder as the only area requiring services. It did not identify or address his documented needs in academics (reading, writing, math, spelling, sentence composition), language (expressive vocabulary, sentence structure, word relationships), or auditory processing. The ALJ found this was a fundamental misunderstanding of the IDEA's requirement to address all disability-related needs.
Wrongly believed a student "performing at cognitive ability" doesn't need special education services. The district argued that because the student's academic scores roughly matched his IQ, he didn't need academic support. The ALJ flatly rejected this, finding no legal basis for the position and noting the IDEA does not allow districts to set their own narrower definition of "need."
Failed to provide adequate occupational therapy during the 2013–2014 school year. The student's handwriting actually regressed during that year — going from writing a paragraph with moderate prompting to needing maximum prompting just to start a writing task. The ALJ found the district's occupational therapy services were insufficient to meet his fine motor needs.
Failed to address language needs beyond articulation for over two years. From February 25, 2013 through April 29, 2015, the district offered no services targeting the student's significant deficits in expressive vocabulary, sentence structure, and understanding word relationships — even though its own speech-language pathologist's assessment identified these needs.

What Was Ordered

39 hours of compensatory individual language therapy — delivered in 30–60 minute sessions, up to twice per week, by a credentialed speech-language pathologist — to address expressive/receptive language, sentence structure, word relationships, and vocabulary. Sessions must be completed by December 31, 2016, outside of regular school hours unless both parties agree otherwise, and cannot substitute for any language services in a future IEP.
19.5 hours of language consultation services — provided by a credentialed speech-language pathologist to the student's classroom teacher, to help implement language strategies in the classroom.
107.5 hours of compensatory academic tutoring — in reading, math, spelling, and writing — to be provided by a certified nonpublic agency or credentialed special education teacher of the parent's choice. The student has until the end of the 2016–2017 school year to use these hours.
Independent occupational therapy evaluation — funded by the district — to determine what OT services the student currently needs. The parent selects the evaluator within the district's IEE criteria.
IEP team meeting funded by the district to review the independent OT evaluation results, with the district required to consider those results in formulating the student's next IEP.
Transportation reimbursement at the federal mileage rate for one round trip per session for both the language therapy and academic tutoring services.
Tutoring reimbursement denied — the parent sought reimbursement for private tutoring already paid for, but introduced no evidence of the actual costs, so this request was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot use intervention tiers as a shield against assessment. Multi-step "student study team" or "RTI" processes are legitimate tools, but they cannot be used to indefinitely delay a special education assessment when a child clearly shows signs of disability. If your child is significantly behind and showing signs of a disability, you have the right to request a formal assessment in writing at any time — and the district must respond within legal timelines, regardless of where the child is in any intervention process.
Put your assessment request in writing and keep copies. This parent had to file a state complaint before the district would agree to assess. When you request an assessment, do it in writing, keep a copy, and note the date. If the district refuses, it must give you written notice explaining why — and it must include a copy of your procedural rights. If it doesn't, that's a procedural violation you can raise.
Eligibility under one category does not limit the services a child can receive. Once your child qualifies for special education under any category — even just an articulation disorder — the district must identify and address all of your child's disability-related needs. The district cannot limit goals and services only to the area that triggered eligibility. Push for a comprehensive needs assessment and make sure the IEP addresses every documented area of difficulty.
"Performing at cognitive level" is not a legal reason to deny services. Districts sometimes argue that a child who is achieving at a level consistent with their IQ doesn't need special education support. Courts have repeatedly rejected this argument. If your child is struggling and has a disability, the fact that their grades or test scores match their measured "ability" does not eliminate their right to specialized instruction and support.
Document regression — it matters for proving inadequate services. The student's writing actually got worse while he was receiving occupational therapy, and that regression was central to the ALJ's finding that the OT services were inadequate. Keep records of your child's work samples, report cards, and teacher communications over time. If your child stops making progress or loses skills, document it carefully — that evidence can support a claim for more or better services and compensatory education.