District Forced to Fund Residential Treatment After Years in Failing Home School Placement

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old with schizophrenia — experiencing auditory, visual, and olfactory hallucinations since age five or six — who was eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. She was enrolled at Valley Oaks Charter School, an independent study home schooling program authorized by the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. Under this model, parents were required to serve as Student's primary teachers, providing four to six hours of daily instruction at home. Between September 2014 and April 2016, the district held multiple IEP meetings and repeatedly offered the same home schooling placement — even though it knew Student was not earning credits, was rarely completing assignments, and that her parents lacked the expertise to address her serious social, emotional, and behavioral needs. Student's father attended IEP meetings, raised concerns repeatedly, and refused to consent to several IEPs. Despite this, the district never filed for due process to defend its placement offers, as required by California law.

An independent psychologist, Dr. Katz, assessed Student in 2015 and found she was "actively psychotic" and "not on the same planet that we are on" — unable to learn given the severity of her untreated mental illness. He concluded Student needed round-the-clock intervention at a residential treatment center before she could benefit from any educational program. Student filed for due process in April 2016, and the ALJ found in her favor on both issues presented.

What the District Did Wrong

Failure to file for due process. Under California law, when a parent refuses to consent to an IEP after previously consenting, the district must file for due process if it believes its IEP offer is appropriate. The district relied instead on signed master agreements between parents and Valley Oaks — documents that governed the home schooling program but did not incorporate any of the special education services or accommodations required by Student's IEP. The ALJ found these master agreements did not relieve the district of its legal duty to offer an appropriate placement through a signed IEP, and the district's failure to file for due process was itself a denial of FAPE.

Offering an inappropriate placement the district knew was failing. From at least September 2014 onward, the district knew that parents were not effective teachers, that Student was not earning credits, and that the home schooling placement was not providing educational benefit. Even after the October 2014 IEP team recommended a special day class at Tehachapi High School — a more appropriate option — the district abandoned that offer when the local school district refused to accept Student while she was enrolled at Valley Oaks. Rather than searching for another appropriate special day class or more restrictive placement, the district reverted to offering the same home schooling program. The ALJ found the district cannot shift its legal responsibility to provide FAPE onto parents, regardless of parents' preferences or limitations.

What Was Ordered

1. The district must, within 45 days of the decision, locate, offer, and fund placement in an appropriate residential treatment center for at least six months — unless the treatment center's staff recommends an earlier or later discharge.
2. The residential treatment center must meet state educational standards and provide individual counseling, small group counseling, social skills training, and transition services.
3. The district must convene an IEP team meeting within 30 days of Student's enrollment at the residential treatment center to review and revise her IEP, including goals, services, and supports.
4. The district must fund all transportation costs, including: round-trip escort by up to two professionals to safely transport Student to the placement; one round-trip home visit for Student during the six-month period; and one round-trip visit by parents to Student, including per diem meals and two nights' lodging.
5. The district must identify the residential placement in consultation with Dr. Katz and Student's parents.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district cannot hide behind a home schooling agreement to avoid its duty to offer a real FAPE. Even if your child is enrolled in an independent study or charter school program, and even if you signed a participation agreement, the district is still legally required to offer an appropriate placement through a signed IEP — not just a general enrollment contract.

2. When a parent refuses to consent to an IEP, the district has a legal obligation to act. California law requires a district to file for due process if it believes its IEP offer is appropriate and a parent won't consent. A district that simply lets a child sit in an inadequate placement without taking action is violating the law — and that failure is itself a basis for a FAPE claim.

3. The district cannot blame parents for a failing placement. If the district knows that a placement depends on parents providing instruction — and knows those parents are not able to meet the child's needs — it cannot continue offering that same placement and call it appropriate. The legal duty to provide FAPE belongs to the district, not the family.

4. An independent educational evaluation can be critical in establishing what a child truly needs. Dr. Katz's independent assessment provided far more detailed insight into Student's psychiatric and educational needs than the district's own evaluations. His testimony directly supported the award of residential treatment. If you believe a district's evaluation is incomplete or minimizes your child's needs, you have the right to request an independent evaluation at public expense.