District Prevails After Parents Reject Multiple NPS Offers for Autistic Teen

Parents of a 14-year-old student with autism and speech-language impairment filed for due process against Carlsbad Unified School District, claiming the district failed to conduct a functional behavior assessment and denied a free appropriate public education through inadequate placement, transportation, and speech services. The ALJ found that the district made multiple reasonable offers of placement and services, but parents repeatedly refused to cooperate or accept those offers. All of the student's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old boy with autism and speech-language impairment who lived within Carlsbad Unified School District. After attending a district school for approximately one day at the start of the 2016-2017 school year, Student stopped attending entirely. Parents wanted Student placed at Winston School, a non-public school (NPS), and the parties reached a settlement agreement on September 28, 2016. That agreement specified that the district would fund Winston, or another mutually agreed-upon NPS if Winston declined Student. It also included aide support, bus transportation, and a plan to assess Student's functional behavior by April 2017 (or sooner if his school of attendance recommended it).

Winston rejected Student shortly after the agreement was signed. From that point forward, the district worked to find alternative NPS placements, offering the San Diego Center for Children, Helix Academy, and eventually Mardan — a school in Orange County that Parents themselves had requested. However, Parents refused to sign a release allowing the district to share Student's records with prospective schools, rejected the San Diego Center for Children without providing specific educational reasons, unilaterally enrolled Student at Mardan without telling the district, and then withdrew Student after a few weeks because the commute was too long. Parents also refused the district's interim offer of home-hospital instruction with speech and language services. By January 2017, Parents were keeping Student at home and seeking reimbursement for private services and tuition.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all issues. On the functional behavior assessment, the ALJ found that parents had already agreed — in the settlement — that the assessment would happen by April 2017. Student only attended Mardan for about three weeks, and there was no evidence that Mardan recommended an earlier assessment or that Student's behavior was disrupting his or others' learning there. The district had no real opportunity to observe and assess his behavior in a school setting.

On placement, the ALJ found that the district acted reasonably and proactively. After Winston declined Student, the district immediately contacted other appropriate NPS programs, offered an interim home-hospital placement with services, and ultimately contracted with Mardan at Parents' own request. The delay in securing a new placement was caused not by the district, but by Parents refusing to sign a consent form that would have allowed the district to share Student's records. When Parents rejected the San Diego Center for Children — which district staff who knew Student personally found appropriate — they did so based on preference, not documented educational need. The ALJ noted that Parents then unilaterally placed Student at Mardan themselves without coordinating with the district, making it impossible for the district to formalize and pay for that placement.

On transportation and speech services, the ALJ found that the district had offered both — bus transportation to Mardan (and reimbursement for driving when Parents preferred that), and 30 minutes of speech-language services per week as part of the home-hospital offer. Parents simply did not accept any of these offers. The ALJ also noted that the district's failure to offer speech services for the first 12 days while scrambling to find a new NPS was a minor, not material, gap that did not rise to a FAPE denial.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was named the prevailing party on all four issues.
The ALJ noted that questions about whether the district owed reimbursement under the September 28, 2016 settlement agreement as a matter of contract law were outside OAH's jurisdiction and not decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to cooperate with the district can undermine your entire case. The ALJ repeatedly pointed to Parents' refusal to sign a records-release form, their rejection of multiple NPS offers without specific educational reasons, and their decision to enroll Student at Mardan without notifying the district. Courts and ALJs will look at whether the district denied FAPE — not whether parents preferred a different program. When parents block the district's efforts, that obstruction can become the reason the district prevails.
Settlement agreements bind both sides — including on timelines for assessments. Parents had agreed that the functional behavior assessment would happen by April 2017. Because of that agreement, the ALJ found the district was not separately required to conduct it sooner. Before signing any settlement, make sure you understand exactly what you are giving up and what timeline you are agreeing to.
If you unilaterally place your child somewhere, tell the district immediately. Parents placed Student at Mardan on their own, and the district only found out when Mardan's staff told them. This damaged Parents' credibility and made it harder to argue the district failed to provide placement — since Parents had essentially made that decision themselves.
Parental preference is not the same as educational need. The ALJ found that Parents rejected the San Diego Center for Children based on preference, not on documented reasons tied to Student's disability-related needs. If you object to a placement the district offers, be prepared to explain specifically — with evidence — why it cannot provide your child a FAPE, not just why you prefer somewhere else.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was named the prevailing party on all four issues.
The ALJ noted that questions about whether the district owed reimbursement under the September 28, 2016 settlement agreement as a matter of contract law were outside OAH's jurisdiction and not decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to cooperate with the district can undermine your entire case. The ALJ repeatedly pointed to Parents' refusal to sign a records-release form, their rejection of multiple NPS offers without specific educational reasons, and their decision to enroll Student at Mardan without notifying the district. Courts and ALJs will look at whether the district denied FAPE — not whether parents preferred a different program. When parents block the district's efforts, that obstruction can become the reason the district prevails.
Settlement agreements bind both sides — including on timelines for assessments. Parents had agreed that the functional behavior assessment would happen by April 2017. Because of that agreement, the ALJ found the district was not separately required to conduct it sooner. Before signing any settlement, make sure you understand exactly what you are giving up and what timeline you are agreeing to.
If you unilaterally place your child somewhere, tell the district immediately. Parents placed Student at Mardan on their own, and the district only found out when Mardan's staff told them. This damaged Parents' credibility and made it harder to argue the district failed to provide placement — since Parents had essentially made that decision themselves.
Parental preference is not the same as educational need. The ALJ found that Parents rejected the San Diego Center for Children based on preference, not on documented reasons tied to Student's disability-related needs. If you object to a placement the district offers, be prepared to explain specifically — with evidence — why it cannot provide your child a FAPE, not just why you prefer somewhere else.