LAUSD Prevails on Most Claims, But Must Fund Behavior Services and IEP Meeting Training

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old with a complex profile of diagnoses including ADHD, partial fetal alcohol syndrome, reactive attachment disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and anxiety. He had been receiving special education services through a charter school (Multicultural Learning Center) while on home and hospital instruction following psychiatric hospitalizations. His IEP included intensive one-on-one academic instruction, behavior intervention, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, counseling, and social skills services — all delivered outside of a school campus. When Student re-enrolled in LAUSD in June 2015, Parent expected the district to continue using the same providers in the same home-based model. LAUSD instead offered comparable services through its own selected nonpublic agencies and proposed nonpublic school placement options for the upcoming school year.

Parent rejected nearly every provider LAUSD offered, insisting on specific providers and a home-based service model. She also rejected all three nonpublic school placements offered by the district. When the existing behavior services provider abruptly terminated services in late August 2015 due to safety concerns in the home, LAUSD could not locate a replacement provider willing to work in a home setting — and did not secure a new provider until January 2016. Parent separately requested an IEP meeting in writing in August 2015, and again in September and October 2015, but the district did not propose any meeting dates until November 2015 — well past the required 30-day window.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled largely in the district's favor. On the core question of whether LAUSD offered comparable services when Student transferred in, the ALJ found that the district made timely, appropriate offers across all service areas — one-on-one instruction, speech and language, occupational therapy, counseling, and behavior services — and even offered compensatory education for brief delays in getting providers in place. The problem was not the district's offers; it was Parent's repeated refusals. The ALJ was clear: parents do not have the right to dictate which specific service providers a district must use, and a district's obligation to provide a FAPE does not require it to implement a plan that parents have rejected. The ALJ also rejected the argument that Student could only benefit from providers who avoided applied behavior analysis techniques, finding no credible evidence to support that claim.

However, the district did lose on two issues. First, the district materially failed to provide behavior services from August 28, 2015 through January 8, 2016 — a gap of over four months. Because behavior services were a critical component of Student's IEP, this gap constituted a denial of FAPE. Second, the district violated the IDEA's procedural requirements by failing to hold an IEP meeting within 30 days of Parent's written request. The district's excuse — that it needed to assess Student first — did not justify the delay.

Despite winning on the behavior services and IEP meeting timing issues, Student received limited relief because Parent failed to present evidence about how many compensatory hours were actually needed or what services would address the harm caused. Argument alone is not evidence, and the burden was on Student to prove the remedy.

What Was Ordered

1. LAUSD must fund 560 hours of behavior intervention implementation services and 30 hours of behavior intervention development services through nonpublic agencies of the district's choosing. These services must be used by the end of the 2016–2017 school year or they are forfeited.
2. LAUSD must provide two hours of training to Sunny Brae Elementary special education staff on (1) the legal requirements for scheduling IEP meetings upon parental request and (2) how to correctly interpret IEPs for transfer students. The training must be completed within 90 days of the decision, and documentation must be sent to Student's family.
3. All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for privately obtained services and compensatory hours for other service areas — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts can choose the service providers — not parents. Under the IDEA, a school district has the right to select qualified providers to implement an IEP, as long as those providers can actually meet the student's needs. Refusing every provider the district offers, based on past experiences or provider preferences, can seriously undermine your legal case and result in your child receiving no services at all.

2. Put your IEP meeting request in writing — and keep a copy. A written request for an IEP meeting triggers a hard legal deadline: the district must hold the meeting within 30 days (not counting long school breaks). This district violated that rule and was found liable. A paper trail of your request is essential to enforcing this right.

3. You must present evidence of the remedy you need, not just the violation. Even when a district clearly breaks the rules, the ALJ can only order what the evidence supports. Student won on the behavior services gap and the IEP meeting delay — but received limited compensation because no evidence was presented about exactly how many hours of services were needed to make up for the harm. If you are in a hearing, be prepared to document the specific remedy you are seeking.

4. Refusing a nonpublic school placement has real consequences. Student had been without a structured school setting since December 2013. Multiple experts — including Parent's own evaluator — agreed that the longer appropriate school placement was delayed, the worse the outcomes. The ALJ noted that the argument for continued individual home-based services had "reached its expiration date." If your child's IEP calls for nonpublic school placement, refusing every offered option may ultimately harm your child more than the district's imperfect offers.