District Wins: Residential Placement in Colorado Was Appropriate for Student with Severe Emotional Needs

What Happened

Student was a 19-year-old non-conserved adult with disabilities classified as emotional disturbance and other health impairment. She enrolled in Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District as a 12th grader in August 2014, having previously attended a residential treatment center in Michigan. Student had a complex history of mental health diagnoses including anxiety disorder, mood disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and ADHD, along with serious behavioral challenges including self-harm, substance abuse, running away from home, and severe school avoidance. Because she had turned 18 in July 2014 without a conservator being appointed, all educational rights — including the right to consent to or refuse IEP offers — had transferred to her.

Over the course of the 2014-2015 school year, the district tried a series of progressively more intensive placements: first a split-day program between the local high school and a non-public school, then full-time enrollment at the non-public school, and finally a Behavior Intervention Plan with home-based supports. Each option failed because Student's chronic absenteeism and social-emotional challenges made it impossible for her to access instruction. In February 2015, Student herself consented in writing to placement at Devereux Cleo Wallace, a residential treatment center in Westminster, Colorado. After about six weeks, Student decided she did not like the program and signed herself out with her mother's support. The district convened an IEP amendment meeting in April 2015 to review the placement, continued to recommend Devereux, but Student refused to consent to the amendment. The district then filed for due process to have its IEP offer declared appropriate. Student did not appear at the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district, finding that the April 15, 2015 IEP amendment offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.

On procedural compliance, the ALJ found that both the November 2014 and April 2015 IEP meetings were properly staffed and that Student meaningfully participated in each one — attending the meetings, voicing her opinions, receiving support from her parent and advocate, and in some cases getting her own preferences incorporated into the IEP (such as the initial split-day placement). The ALJ inferred that notice had been given because Student attended and raised no objection.

On predetermination, the ALJ found no evidence that the district had made up its mind before the IEP meetings. To the contrary, the district had actually implemented multiple less restrictive options at Student's own suggestion before concluding that a residential placement was necessary.

On substantive appropriateness, the ALJ found that Devereux was the correct placement. The district's comprehensive triennial assessment documented Student's extreme social-emotional needs, and two qualified professionals — a school psychologist and a mental health psychologist — testified persuasively that Student required around-the-clock therapeutic monitoring to benefit from education at all. The ALJ applied the legal test for least restrictive environment and concluded that less restrictive settings had already been tried and failed, and that Student's severe absenteeism made meaningful academic or social benefit in a less restrictive setting impossible.

The ALJ also noted that because Student was a legal adult who held her own educational rights, her voluntary decision to leave Devereux against the district's recommendation meant she "assumed the risk of refusing the opportunities to receive the academic and non-academic benefits offered by the IEP."

What Was Ordered

1. The district's request that the April 15, 2015 IEP amendment be declared an offer of FAPE was granted.
2. The student's implicit request to reject the residential placement was denied.
3. No compensatory education or other relief was awarded to Student.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. When a student turns 18 without a conservator, educational rights transfer completely to the student. This means the student — not the parent — controls consent to IEPs, placements, and assessments. If an adult student signs themselves out of a placement the district recommended, the district may be off the hook for what happens next. Families should carefully consider whether conservatorship or a supported decision-making agreement is appropriate before a student turns 18.

2. Districts are on stronger legal ground when they try less restrictive options first. The district won in part because it documented a clear progression through multiple placements before recommending residential treatment. If your district jumps straight to a restrictive placement without trying intermediate supports, that is a meaningful legal argument against the placement.

3. Chronic absenteeism can legally justify a more restrictive placement, including residential treatment. If a student cannot attend school consistently enough to benefit from instruction — even with supports like behavior intervention plans and home-based services — courts and hearing officers may find that a more intensive setting is both appropriate and the least restrictive environment for that particular student.

4. A student's or parent's personal dislike of a placement is not enough to defeat a district's FAPE offer. The ALJ acknowledged that Student found Devereux uncomfortable and unwelcoming, but found that her subjective preference did not override the clinical and educational evidence that the placement was appropriate. To successfully challenge a placement, families need independent assessment data, expert testimony, or documented implementation failures — not just disagreement with the district's recommendation.