District Partially Denies FAPE by Missing ADHD Eligibility, But Wins on Most Claims

A parent challenged Capistrano Unified School District's handling of her son's special education eligibility, arguing the district should have identified him as eligible under multiple categories — including specific learning disability — from the start of third grade. The ALJ found the district did make one key error: failing to find Student eligible under the category of Other Health Impaired due to ADHD by February 2015, which denied him a FAPE. However, the district prevailed on the vast majority of issues, including the validity of its assessments, and was not required to fund most of the independent evaluations requested by Parent.

What Happened

Student was an 11-year-old boy who had been diagnosed with ADHD since kindergarten and had longstanding difficulties with written expression dating back to his early school years. When Student transferred to Capistrano Unified School District for third grade in September 2013, Parent met with the school principal and informally requested a special education assessment. The district suggested waiting until Parent-teacher conferences before formally beginning the process, and Parent agreed — though she later argued this delay violated her child's rights. The district eventually assessed Student in early 2014 and concluded he did not qualify for special education under any eligibility category, finding that his ADHD was not significantly impacting his access to education. Parent disagreed, believing the district had failed to recognize his ADHD, writing difficulties, and other needs from the moment he enrolled.

Parent filed for due process in February 2016, raising numerous issues spanning nearly three years of the Student's enrollment. She argued that the district violated its "child find" obligations by not identifying Student sooner, that his assessments were flawed, that his IEPs lacked appropriate goals and services, and that he should have been found eligible under the categories of Specific Learning Disability and Other Health Impaired (OHI) much earlier. The district, in turn, filed its own due process case to defend the validity of its 2015 psychoeducational and occupational therapy assessments and avoid having to pay for independent evaluations Parent had requested. The two cases were consolidated and heard together.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ agreed with the district on nearly all issues. The 2014 determination that Student did not qualify for special education was upheld — at that time, Student's ADHD was not meaningfully interfering with his education, his teacher could redirect him easily, and his academic scores were all in the average or above-average range. The ALJ found no misrepresentations were made to Parent about the assessment process, and that any misunderstanding she had about it was her own. The statute of limitations was not tolled, meaning claims arising before February 3, 2014 were time-barred.

The district's February 2015 psychoeducational and occupational therapy assessments were found to be legally valid. Minor editorial errors in the assessment reports — such as a transposed score — did not invalidate the assessments because the correct scores were clearly shown in the data and discussed at the IEP meeting. The ALJ also rejected Parent's argument that Student had dysgraphia, finding no persuasive diagnosis of that condition in the record.

However, the ALJ found that by February 2015, Student's ADHD had become a significant factor in his failure to make expected progress in written expression. The district should have found Student eligible under the Other Health Impaired (OHI) category at that point. By failing to do so, the district denied Student a FAPE. The district also failed to develop goals addressing Student's attention and behavior deficits in its February 2015 and January 2016 IEPs, which further denied him a FAPE.

On placement, the ALJ found that pulling Student from class for 45 minutes, three days a week for specialized academic instruction did not violate his right to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), given his need for a distraction-free setting and individualized attention.

What Was Ordered

The district must reimburse Parent $4,500 for the cost of a private psychoeducational assessment (Dr. Passaro's evaluation), which was instrumental in establishing Student's OHI eligibility and appropriate accommodations.
The district must provide Student with 30 hours of compensatory specialized academic instruction in English language arts, including written expression, delivered by either a district special education teacher or a contracted non-public agency.
Parent may schedule the compensatory hours before school, after school, during summer, or during school breaks. Student has one calendar year to use the hours once the district arranges funding.
The district's 2015 psychoeducational and occupational therapy assessments were upheld as valid; the district is not required to fund independent evaluations in those areas (beyond the compensatory relief above).
All other relief requested by Parent was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an assessment's conclusions is not enough to get it thrown out. The ALJ made clear that editorial errors or a parent's disagreement with eligibility recommendations do not automatically make an assessment legally invalid. What matters is whether the district used proper tools, qualified assessors, and followed correct procedures — not whether the outcome matched what the parent hoped for.
A child's ADHD diagnosis alone does not guarantee eligibility for special education. To qualify under Other Health Impaired, the ADHD must be shown to significantly limit the child's ability to access education. In the early years of this case, Student's needs were being met in general education — but by 2015, the impact of his ADHD on his writing and attention had grown to the point where the district should have acted. Parents should document how ADHD symptoms are affecting schoolwork over time.
IEP goals must specifically address identified areas of disability. Even after Student was found eligible, the district failed to write goals targeting his attention and behavior deficits for over a year. The ALJ found this was a FAPE denial. Parents should check that every identified area of need — not just academic subjects — is covered by a measurable IEP goal.
Statute of limitations rules matter. Parent raised claims going back to the start of third grade, but because she waited more than two years to file for due process, many of those claims were time-barred. If you believe your child is being denied appropriate services, consult a special education advocate or attorney promptly — waiting too long can eliminate your legal options.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district must reimburse Parent $4,500 for the cost of a private psychoeducational assessment (Dr. Passaro's evaluation), which was instrumental in establishing Student's OHI eligibility and appropriate accommodations.
The district must provide Student with 30 hours of compensatory specialized academic instruction in English language arts, including written expression, delivered by either a district special education teacher or a contracted non-public agency.
Parent may schedule the compensatory hours before school, after school, during summer, or during school breaks. Student has one calendar year to use the hours once the district arranges funding.
The district's 2015 psychoeducational and occupational therapy assessments were upheld as valid; the district is not required to fund independent evaluations in those areas (beyond the compensatory relief above).
All other relief requested by Parent was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an assessment's conclusions is not enough to get it thrown out. The ALJ made clear that editorial errors or a parent's disagreement with eligibility recommendations do not automatically make an assessment legally invalid. What matters is whether the district used proper tools, qualified assessors, and followed correct procedures — not whether the outcome matched what the parent hoped for.
A child's ADHD diagnosis alone does not guarantee eligibility for special education. To qualify under Other Health Impaired, the ADHD must be shown to significantly limit the child's ability to access education. In the early years of this case, Student's needs were being met in general education — but by 2015, the impact of his ADHD on his writing and attention had grown to the point where the district should have acted. Parents should document how ADHD symptoms are affecting schoolwork over time.
IEP goals must specifically address identified areas of disability. Even after Student was found eligible, the district failed to write goals targeting his attention and behavior deficits for over a year. The ALJ found this was a FAPE denial. Parents should check that every identified area of need — not just academic subjects — is covered by a measurable IEP goal.
Statute of limitations rules matter. Parent raised claims going back to the start of third grade, but because she waited more than two years to file for due process, many of those claims were time-barred. If you believe your child is being denied appropriate services, consult a special education advocate or attorney promptly — waiting too long can eliminate your legal options.