District Must Hold Manifestation Meeting Before Reinstating Expulsion

A 14-year-old student with ADHD and emotional disturbance was suspended and expelled after two separate behavior incidents at William S. Hart Union High School District. The ALJ found that while the district properly handled the first incident, it violated the IDEA by reinstating the student's expulsion after a second incident in August 2015 without ever holding a required manifestation determination meeting. The district was ordered to convene a manifestation review and reinstate the suspension of expulsion in the meantime.

What Happened

This case involves a 14-year-old boy eligible for special education under the categories of emotional disturbance and other health impairment (ADHD), who had a long history of behavioral incidents dating back to elementary school. In January 2015, shortly after being re-enrolled in special education and signing a behavior contract, he threatened two classmates who he believed had reported him for a prior drug incident. The district held a manifestation determination meeting on February 3, 2015, concluded the behavior was not a manifestation of his disabilities, and proceeded with expulsion proceedings. Ultimately, the family and district entered into a "suspension of expulsion" agreement in April 2015, allowing the student to return to school at Sequoia Charter High School in a specialized program.

The student completed the rest of the school year without incident, but on August 25, 2015, he killed a lizard on campus, showed lack of remorse, and called himself "a psychopath" in front of peers and staff. The district suspended him for one day, then on September 8, 2015, notified parents it was lifting the suspension of expulsion and reinstating the original expulsion — a disciplinary change of placement lasting more than 10 school days. Critically, the district never held a manifestation determination meeting after the August 25 incident, which the ALJ found to be a significant procedural violation of the IDEA.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on the January 2015 incident (Issues 1–3) and dismissed a challenge to the expulsion agreement procedures (Issue 4) for lack of jurisdiction. The district was found to have violated the IDEA only on Issue 5, regarding the August 2015 incident:

District Prevailed — January 2015 Incident: The manifestation review team properly concluded the student's threats of retaliation were not caused by his ADHD or emotional disturbance. The behavior was premeditated (not impulsive), occurred outside the classroom during an unstructured setting, and was not consistent with how his disabilities had previously presented. The student offered no expert testimony to counter the school psychologist's credible professional analysis.

District Prevailed — Home Study Services: The district offered five hours per week of home study and attempted to provide counseling. Parents were largely unreachable, and the student missed scheduled sessions. The district met its obligations; the limited counseling received was due to the family's unavailability, not district failure.

District Prevailed — Functional Behavior Assessment: No FBA was required during the home study period because the student had no peer contact in a school setting. The school psychologist's opinion that an FBA was not appropriate under the circumstances was credible and uncontested by any expert on the student's behalf.

District Lost — August 2015 Manifestation Determination (Issue 5): When the district lifted the suspension of expulsion after the August 25, 2015 lizard incident — triggering a disciplinary change of placement exceeding 10 school days — it was legally required to hold a manifestation determination meeting within 10 school days. It never did. The district wrongly assumed that because the student was already under a suspended expulsion, the IDEA's procedural protections no longer applied. The ALJ rejected this argument: a student attending school under an active IEP retains all IDEA protections, and a stayed expulsion agreement under California law cannot waive federally guaranteed rights. The district's failure to hold a manifestation meeting significantly denied parents the opportunity to participate in a critical educational decision.

What Was Ordered

The district's February 3, 2015 manifestation determination (January 27 incident was not a manifestation) was affirmed.
Issue 4 (validity of the expulsion agreement procedures) was dismissed for lack of OAH jurisdiction.
The district must convene a proper manifestation determination meeting within 15 school days of the order to evaluate whether the August 25, 2015 lizard incident was a manifestation of the student's disability or caused by district failure to implement his IEP.
The district must pay for a psychologist or psychotherapist of the parents' choosing to attend and actively participate in the manifestation review — covering up to six hours of preparation and attendance time plus round-trip travel at the professional's normal hourly rate.
The suspension of expulsion must be reinstated pending the outcome of the manifestation determination. If the team finds the behavior was a manifestation, or if the district fails to hold the meeting as ordered, the suspension of expulsion is reinstated through the end of its term.
Requests to expunge the expulsion record or order an independent FBA were denied as outside OAH jurisdiction or unsupported by the evidence.

Why This Matters for Parents

A suspended expulsion does not eliminate your child's IDEA rights. Even if your child is attending school under a "stayed expulsion" agreement, they remain a special education student with full IDEA protections. The district cannot skip a manifestation determination just because your child was previously expelled.
Every disciplinary change of placement over 10 days requires a manifestation meeting — no exceptions. Before a district can remove your special education child from their placement for more than 10 school days, it must hold a proper manifestation determination meeting with IEP team members and you as the parent. Failing to do so is a serious procedural violation.
You can request an independent professional attend a manifestation meeting. When a district denies parents the chance to participate in a manifestation determination, courts and ALJs can order the district to fund a parent-chosen psychologist or therapist to attend and participate — not just observe — at the meeting. Ask for this remedy if your participation was blocked.
Expert testimony matters in challenging a manifestation determination. In the January 2015 portion of this case, the student lost partly because his parents had no expert to counter the school psychologist's analysis. If you believe your child's behavior was caused by their disability, consult an independent psychologist or educational specialist before the hearing.
State expulsion agreements cannot override federal IDEA protections. If your district offers a "suspension of expulsion" agreement, understand that signing it does not mean you are waiving your child's federal rights under the IDEA. Federal law takes precedence, and any agreement that purports to strip those rights is not enforceable.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district's February 3, 2015 manifestation determination (January 27 incident was not a manifestation) was affirmed.
Issue 4 (validity of the expulsion agreement procedures) was dismissed for lack of OAH jurisdiction.
The district must convene a proper manifestation determination meeting within 15 school days of the order to evaluate whether the August 25, 2015 lizard incident was a manifestation of the student's disability or caused by district failure to implement his IEP.
The district must pay for a psychologist or psychotherapist of the parents' choosing to attend and actively participate in the manifestation review — covering up to six hours of preparation and attendance time plus round-trip travel at the professional's normal hourly rate.
The suspension of expulsion must be reinstated pending the outcome of the manifestation determination. If the team finds the behavior was a manifestation, or if the district fails to hold the meeting as ordered, the suspension of expulsion is reinstated through the end of its term.
Requests to expunge the expulsion record or order an independent FBA were denied as outside OAH jurisdiction or unsupported by the evidence.

Why This Matters for Parents

A suspended expulsion does not eliminate your child's IDEA rights. Even if your child is attending school under a "stayed expulsion" agreement, they remain a special education student with full IDEA protections. The district cannot skip a manifestation determination just because your child was previously expelled.
Every disciplinary change of placement over 10 days requires a manifestation meeting — no exceptions. Before a district can remove your special education child from their placement for more than 10 school days, it must hold a proper manifestation determination meeting with IEP team members and you as the parent. Failing to do so is a serious procedural violation.
You can request an independent professional attend a manifestation meeting. When a district denies parents the chance to participate in a manifestation determination, courts and ALJs can order the district to fund a parent-chosen psychologist or therapist to attend and participate — not just observe — at the meeting. Ask for this remedy if your participation was blocked.
Expert testimony matters in challenging a manifestation determination. In the January 2015 portion of this case, the student lost partly because his parents had no expert to counter the school psychologist's analysis. If you believe your child's behavior was caused by their disability, consult an independent psychologist or educational specialist before the hearing.
State expulsion agreements cannot override federal IDEA protections. If your district offers a "suspension of expulsion" agreement, understand that signing it does not mean you are waiving your child's federal rights under the IDEA. Federal law takes precedence, and any agreement that purports to strip those rights is not enforceable.