District Wins Right to Implement IEP for Student with Cerebral Palsy Over Parent's Objection

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old girl with multiple significant disabilities, including cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia, epilepsy, intellectual disability, and cortical visual impairment. These conditions affected virtually every area of her daily life — she used a wheelchair, was fed through a gastrostomy tube, required diaper changes during the school day, and was largely nonverbal in the classroom. She communicated primarily through eye gaze and smiling, and sometimes turned away or jerked her body to avoid interaction.

In the fall of 2016, Garvey School District completed a comprehensive triennial assessment and convened IEP meetings on September 30 and October 6, 2016. The proposed IEP was extensive: it offered full-time placement in a special day class, a full-time one-to-one aide for the entire school day and transportation, speech and language therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, vision services, adapted physical education, and an extended school year program. Father attended the October 6 meeting but walked out before it concluded, demanding instead that Student be placed in a general education classroom with only speech services. Parents refused to consent to the IEP. Because the district believed the IEP was necessary to provide Student with a FAPE, it filed for due process — which is what districts are required to do when parents withhold consent for a service the district considers essential. Parents did not attend the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

Because the district filed this case and was trying to show its IEP was appropriate, the burden of proof rested with the district — not the parents. The ALJ found the district met that burden on every issue.

On procedures, the ALJ found the district properly invited parents to both IEP meetings, waited for Father before starting the September 30 meeting, called him when he didn't arrive, and proceeded only after he instructed them to do so. At the October 6 meeting, Father participated until he walked out. The district was not required to stop the meeting or immediately take Father on a classroom visit mid-IEP. The district's written IEP clearly stated all required elements: present levels of performance, measurable goals with short-term objectives, services with start dates and frequency, and how much time Student would spend with nondisabled peers.

On substance, the ALJ found the IEP was reasonably calculated to help Student make progress given her circumstances. Student's assessment showed functioning at the developmental level of a zero-to-twelve-month-old infant in most areas. The ALJ concluded she would receive no meaningful educational benefit from full-time general education placement. Her one-to-one aide, modified curriculum, and specialized related services were necessary — not optional. Spending recess on the playground with typical peers was found to be the maximum appropriate integration given her social and communication abilities. The ALJ also found the extended school year offer was appropriate. The father's preference for a general education setting with only speech services was not supported by Student's needs or the assessment data.

What Was Ordered

1. The October 2016 IEP was found to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
2. The district was authorized to implement the 2016 IEP without parental consent, provided Student remains enrolled in a district school and continues to receive special education and related services.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts can go to hearing when you withhold consent. If a district believes its IEP is legally required to provide your child a FAPE and you refuse to consent, the district can file for due process to get authorization to implement the IEP anyway. This is different from most cases — usually it's parents who file. Knowing this dynamic exists can help you decide when and how to engage.

2. Walking out of an IEP meeting doesn't stop the process. The ALJ found the district could complete the IEP and move forward even after Father left. If you have serious concerns, staying in the meeting — or requesting a continuation in writing — gives you more legal protection than walking out.

3. Parents cannot compel a specific placement or methodology. The law gives districts discretion over how to deliver services. Father's request to place Student in general education with only speech services was denied because the evidence showed she needed a more intensive setting. Your preference matters and must be considered, but the district is not legally required to follow it.

4. A more restrictive placement can still be the legally correct one. "Least restrictive environment" does not always mean general education. For students with severe needs, a special day class with individualized support may be the appropriate LRE — and courts will uphold it when the evidence supports it. If your child is in a restrictive setting, ask the district to document specifically why less restrictive options were considered and rejected.