District Violated FAPE by Holding IEP Without Parent After Only One Day's Notice

What Happened

Student is a 16-year-old girl eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability. She attended Dana Hills High School in the Capistrano Unified School District and was working toward a regular high school diploma. Student also has hyperhidrosis (excessively sweaty hands) and a soft voice resulting from a damaged vocal cord. Beginning in September 2015, the district made numerous attempts to schedule Student's annual IEP review, but three previously agreed-upon meeting dates were cancelled by Parent. After Parent cancelled the November 17, 2015 meeting on November 9 — and proposed two alternative dates — the district sent notice at 4:37 p.m. on November 16, 2015, informing Parent it intended to proceed the very next day. Parent responded that she was unavailable and objected to the meeting going forward without her. The district held the meeting anyway, developed a new IEP, and sent it to Parent for consent afterward.

Parent also requested curb-to-curb transportation as a related service for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, arguing Student was socially vulnerable, had a soft voice, and had never learned to use public transportation. The district denied the request, concluding Student could get to school in the same manner as her non-disabled peers. The district separately filed its own due process complaint seeking a ruling that transportation was not required under Student's IEP.

What the District Did Wrong

On notice and parental participation: The ALJ found that providing less than 24 hours' notice of an IEP meeting is never sufficient, regardless of how many prior meetings a parent has cancelled. The general standard for timely IEP meeting notice is 10 days in advance. The district's October 22 invitation proposing multiple possible dates — including November 17 — did not qualify as proper notice of a specific meeting, because notice must identify the exact time, date, and location. When Parent cancelled the November 17 meeting on November 9 and proposed alternative dates, it was unreasonable for the district to assume she understood the meeting would proceed anyway.

The ALJ also found the district violated IDEA by holding the full annual IEP meeting and developing a new IEP without Parent present, even though Parent had expressed a clear desire to attend all IEP meetings and had not refused to participate — she simply sought to reschedule. The ALJ applied the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Doug C. v. Hawaii Dept. of Education, which holds that a parent's frustrating scheduling behavior does not excuse a district's failure to include that parent in the IEP meeting when the parent is willing to participate. The district could have explored waiving attendance of unavailable team members with Parent's agreement, but did not.

Both violations — inadequate notice and proceeding without parental participation — significantly impeded Parent's opportunity to participate in decisions about Student's education, constituting a denial of FAPE.

On transportation: The ALJ ruled in the district's favor. The evidence showed Student navigated a large high school campus independently, had no physical or behavioral impairments preventing her from using public transportation, and maintained a GPA above 3.6. Multiple credentialed teachers testified that Student had the cognitive and functional ability to learn to ride a public bus. Parent's concerns, while genuine, were not tied specifically to Student's learning disability.

What Was Ordered

1. Capistrano must convene an IEP team meeting with Parent present. Parent must propose three dates within 30 days of the start of the 2016-2017 school year, and the district must hold the meeting on one of those dates.
2. Capistrano must pay the cost of Student's counsel or advocate attending that IEP meeting, up to a maximum of three hours. If Parent cancels the meeting once it is scheduled, this obligation is waived.
3. Within 30 days of the decision, Capistrano must conduct a two-hour training for all special education administrators, program specialists, and special education teachers assigned to Dana Hills students during 2016-2017.
4. The training must be led by an outside expert in special education law (not a district employee) and must cover parental participation rights and the legal significance of the Doug C. ruling.
5. Student's requests for relief on the transportation issue were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district cannot hold an IEP meeting with less than 24 hours' notice, even if you have cancelled meetings before. The law generally requires about 10 days' advance notice of an IEP meeting. The district's frustration with scheduling difficulties does not override your right to meaningful participation.

2. Proposing multiple possible meeting dates is not the same as giving notice of a specific meeting. If a district lists several potential dates in an invitation, that does not lock in any one of them. Cancelling one proposed date should not be treated as waiving your right to notice of whichever date the district ultimately chooses.

3. If you are willing to reschedule — not refusing to participate — the district generally cannot proceed without you. The key legal distinction is between a parent who refuses to come and a parent who is trying to find a workable date. If you are actively proposing alternative dates, courts have found the district must make good-faith efforts to accommodate you.

4. Transportation as a related service is decided case by case, and disability category alone does not guarantee it. To qualify, the evidence must show your child's disability actually prevents them from getting to school the same way non-disabled peers do. Academic ability, campus navigation skills, and the character of the surrounding neighborhood are all relevant factors the IEP team will consider.