District Wins: Parents Who Refused Assessments Cannot Claim District Failed to Assess

Parents of a 14-year-old student with autism filed a due process complaint against Lake Elsinore Unified School District, claiming the District failed to properly assess their daughter's behavioral needs during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor, finding that the District had repeatedly offered appropriate assessment plans but was prevented from conducting evaluations because Parents refused to give consent. The student's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old girl eligible for special education under the category of autism. She had significant behavioral challenges, including self-injury (hair pulling and pinching to the point of bleeding), property destruction, and verbal disruption. Parents dis-enrolled Student from the District in 2012, briefly placed her at a private school (Beacon Day School), then homeschooled her before enrolling her at another private school, Port View Preparatory, in April 2014.

Despite Student being out of the District's direct care, the District was still legally obligated to conduct a triennial (every three years) reassessment. The District sent assessment plans to Parents in September 2012, June 2013, and April 2014 — all of which Parents refused to sign. Parents and their educational advocate withheld information about Student's ongoing behavioral challenges during the June 2014 IEP meeting, and the advocate openly told the District team that Parents wanted to waive the triennial evaluation. Parents then filed a due process complaint arguing the District had denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to assess her behavior. The ALJ rejected every claim.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the District did everything it was required to do. It sent multiple assessment plans — in 2012, 2013, and 2014 — that included appropriate and comprehensive behavioral assessments such as records reviews, direct observations by a psychologist and behavior specialist, and six behavior rating scales completed from multiple perspectives (student, parent, and teacher). These assessments were found to meet or exceed what was legally required.

Parents argued the District should have offered a "functional analysis assessment," a more intensive type of behavioral evaluation. However, both the District's experts and Student's own experts from Port View testified unanimously that a functional analysis would have been inappropriate — and potentially dangerous — for Student, because it involves recreating the environments that trigger problem behaviors, which in Student's case had included serious self-injury. The ALJ found this argument directly undercut by Student's own witnesses.

The ALJ also found that Parents had strategically withheld cooperation on the advice of their educational advocate, who mistakenly believed the District had violated the law by not including a functional analysis. Rather than ask the District to modify its assessment plan, the advocate advised Parents to refuse consent entirely and use the District's "failure" to assess as leverage in litigation. The ALJ found this strategy not only legally flawed but harmful to the Student, who went years without a formal reassessment as a result. Because districts are not permitted to assess students without parental consent, the ALJ concluded the District bore no legal responsibility for the gap in assessments.

What Was Ordered

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

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to consent to an assessment plan is not a winning legal strategy. Under the IDEA and California law, school districts cannot assess a student without parental consent. If you refuse to sign an assessment plan, the District is legally protected from being held responsible for not assessing your child. Withholding consent as a litigation tactic can backfire — and leave your child without updated evaluations for years.
If you think an assessment plan is missing something, say so at the IEP meeting and request changes. In this case, Parents believed the District should have offered a functional analysis assessment. But instead of requesting that addition, they refused everything. The ALJ noted the District was receptive to parent input and likely would have modified the plan if asked. Always make your requests in writing at or before the IEP meeting.
Withholding information from the IEP team can hurt your child's case. Parents and their advocate reported that Student's behaviors had improved and omitted their real concerns about ongoing challenges. The ALJ found this undermined the family's credibility and made it impossible to argue the District had failed to address those same hidden concerns.
Your child's own private school experts can be used against you. The experts from Port View — Student's own placement — testified that the District's assessment plan was actually appropriate and that a functional analysis would have been dangerous. When choosing experts and private providers, understand that their professional opinions may not always align with your legal arguments.
Educational advocates are not lawyers and are not always right. The advocate in this case had no training in education law, behavior, or assessments, yet gave legal advice that cost the family years of appropriate evaluation. If you are considering a legal strategy in special education, consult a qualified special education attorney, not just an advocate.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

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

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to consent to an assessment plan is not a winning legal strategy. Under the IDEA and California law, school districts cannot assess a student without parental consent. If you refuse to sign an assessment plan, the District is legally protected from being held responsible for not assessing your child. Withholding consent as a litigation tactic can backfire — and leave your child without updated evaluations for years.
If you think an assessment plan is missing something, say so at the IEP meeting and request changes. In this case, Parents believed the District should have offered a functional analysis assessment. But instead of requesting that addition, they refused everything. The ALJ noted the District was receptive to parent input and likely would have modified the plan if asked. Always make your requests in writing at or before the IEP meeting.
Withholding information from the IEP team can hurt your child's case. Parents and their advocate reported that Student's behaviors had improved and omitted their real concerns about ongoing challenges. The ALJ found this undermined the family's credibility and made it impossible to argue the District had failed to address those same hidden concerns.
Your child's own private school experts can be used against you. The experts from Port View — Student's own placement — testified that the District's assessment plan was actually appropriate and that a functional analysis would have been dangerous. When choosing experts and private providers, understand that their professional opinions may not always align with your legal arguments.
Educational advocates are not lawyers and are not always right. The advocate in this case had no training in education law, behavior, or assessments, yet gave legal advice that cost the family years of appropriate evaluation. If you are considering a legal strategy in special education, consult a qualified special education attorney, not just an advocate.