Long Beach Parent Loses IEP Goals Challenge After Signing Broad Settlement Agreement

A parent filed a due process complaint against Long Beach Unified School District alleging that Student's IEP failed to include appropriate goals in occupational therapy, vision, and speech and language from May 2015 through April 2016. The ALJ ruled in favor of the District, finding that a May 2015 settlement agreement had waived these FAPE claims, and that in any event the goals developed by the District were adequate and Student made meaningful educational progress during the disputed period.

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old boy with severe orthopedic impairments, including a form of dwarfism, very low vision with a history of retinal detachment, and bilateral hearing loss. He was eligible for special education primarily under the category of orthopedic impairment. Student had significant communication delays, functioning at approximately the 24–36 month range in both expressive and receptive language, and relied on a speech-generating device and picture-based communication system. He attended a special day class at an elementary school within Long Beach Unified School District.

In May 2015, the family and the District entered into a settlement agreement to resolve three pending due process cases and a state compliance complaint. That agreement provided Student with specific compensatory education hours in occupational therapy, vision, and speech and language, but said nothing about goals for those services. Parent then filed a new due process complaint in April 2016 alleging that the District denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) from May 5, 2015, to April 1, 2016, by failing to write appropriate IEP goals in occupational therapy, vision, and speech and language. Parent relied in part on independent evaluations by a psychologist and a speech-language pathologist, both of whom recommended additional or different goals than those the District had developed.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected all of Parent's claims and ruled entirely in favor of the District on two independent grounds.

First, the settlement agreement contained an explicit waiver of FAPE claims covering the period from May 5, 2015, through June 30, 2016. The agreement also included an integration clause, meaning that its written terms were the complete and final agreement between the parties — nothing outside those written terms could be added or implied. Parent argued that because the agreement provided for compensatory therapy services, it must have implicitly required the District to write goals for those services. The ALJ disagreed, finding that there was no mention of goals anywhere in the agreement, and that standard contract law prohibits reading in terms that the parties did not write. Because Parent signed the agreement with the advice of counsel, and the agreement's language was clear, Parent had simply waived the right to raise these claims.

Second, and independently, the ALJ found that even setting the settlement agreement aside, the District's IEP goals were legally adequate. In occupational therapy, the District's June 2014 assessment found no unmet needs that required dedicated occupational therapy goals, and Student's motor and self-care skills were being addressed through language arts and adapted physical education goals. In speech and language, Student's IEP goals appropriately focused on building his use of his communication device and developing functional speech approximations, and Student made significant progress during the period in question. In vision, Student's goal of independently using his video magnifier was aligned with his core need and he demonstrated clear improvement. The ALJ also found Parent's independent experts unpersuasive: both the psychologist and the speech-language pathologist had conducted their assessments seven to nine months before the settlement, and their recommendations did not reflect Student's actual levels of performance and progress at the time the disputed IEPs were developed.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District prevailed on all issues presented.

Why This Matters for Parents

Read every word of a settlement agreement before signing — especially the waiver language. This case turned largely on a broad FAPE waiver that Parent signed as part of settling earlier disputes. Once signed with counsel's advice, that waiver blocked Parent from raising new claims about the same period, even claims that weren't specifically discussed during negotiations.
An integration clause means what it says: if it's not written in the agreement, it's not part of the deal. Parent argued that goals should have been implied by the agreement's provision of compensatory services. The ALJ held that because the agreement contained an integration clause limiting it to its stated terms, there was no room to imply additional obligations like writing goals.
Independent evaluations are most persuasive when they reflect the student's current needs. Both of Parent's outside experts conducted their evaluations nearly a year before the disputed IEPs were developed. The ALJ gave their recommendations little weight because they didn't reflect what Student could actually do at the time the IEPs were written. Parents should seek updated evaluations as close as possible to the IEP meeting they intend to challenge.
Goals don't have to be labeled by service type to count — what matters is whether they address the student's actual needs. The District did not write explicit "occupational therapy goals," but the ALJ found that Student's fine motor and visual-motor needs were addressed through language arts and adapted physical education goals. Parents should examine the substance of all goals across the IEP, not just their category headings, when evaluating whether a need is being addressed.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected all of Parent's claims and ruled entirely in favor of the District on two independent grounds.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District prevailed on all issues presented.

Why This Matters for Parents

Read every word of a settlement agreement before signing — especially the waiver language. This case turned largely on a broad FAPE waiver that Parent signed as part of settling earlier disputes. Once signed with counsel's advice, that waiver blocked Parent from raising new claims about the same period, even claims that weren't specifically discussed during negotiations.
An integration clause means what it says: if it's not written in the agreement, it's not part of the deal. Parent argued that goals should have been implied by the agreement's provision of compensatory services. The ALJ held that because the agreement contained an integration clause limiting it to its stated terms, there was no room to imply additional obligations like writing goals.
Independent evaluations are most persuasive when they reflect the student's current needs. Both of Parent's outside experts conducted their evaluations nearly a year before the disputed IEPs were developed. The ALJ gave their recommendations little weight because they didn't reflect what Student could actually do at the time the IEPs were written. Parents should seek updated evaluations as close as possible to the IEP meeting they intend to challenge.
Goals don't have to be labeled by service type to count — what matters is whether they address the student's actual needs. The District did not write explicit "occupational therapy goals," but the ALJ found that Student's fine motor and visual-motor needs were addressed through language arts and adapted physical education goals. Parents should examine the substance of all goals across the IEP, not just their category headings, when evaluating whether a need is being addressed.