Student with Cerebral Palsy Wins on Speech Services and Male Paraeducator, But Loses on OT and Paraeducator Physical Capability Claims

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old sophomore with spastic quadriplegia cerebral palsy, making him eligible for special education as orthopedically impaired and speech or language impaired. His cerebral palsy affected his mobility, toileting, and communication — including the clarity of his speech due to weakened diaphragm and intercostal muscles. He attended Adolfo Camarillo High School in Oxnard Union High School District beginning in August 2015, supported by a full-time one-to-one paraeducator and speech therapy services. His grades were strong — he maintained a 4.0 GPA — but Parent and Student raised ongoing concerns about safety on campus, the physical capability of assigned paraeducators, and the adequacy of his speech services and supports.

Parent filed for due process in February 2017, raising four major areas of concern: (1) the district's failure to assess Student in areas of suspected need, including speech-language, occupational therapy, and augmentative communication; (2) an inadequate January 2017 speech assessment; (3) failure to provide appropriate speech therapy services and appropriate paraeducator support, including a male paraeducator for restroom visits; and (4) failure to notify Parent when the district declined to assess in areas Parent had specifically requested in writing on the November 2016 assessment plan.

What the District Did Wrong

Speech Services Changed Without Assessment. In November 2015, in response to Student's preference not to be pulled out of class, the district changed his speech therapy from 100 minutes per month of direct services to a consultation/collaboration model. Critically, no one proposed assessing Student before making this change, and Student's last communication assessment was from 2011 — four years earlier. The ALJ found that without current assessment data, the IEP team lacked the information needed to design an appropriate speech service model or develop meaningful communication goals. This failure denied Student a FAPE in the area of speech services from November 2015 onward.

January 2017 Speech Assessment Was Insufficient. When the district finally assessed Student in speech-language as part of his triennial evaluation, the ALJ found the assessment was not sufficiently comprehensive. The assessors administered only one standardized test, recorded one observation, and did not address the relationship between Student's cerebral palsy, his seating and posture, and his ability to produce sound — despite knowing that his physical disability and communication needs were directly connected. An independent evaluator retained by Parent offered more thorough findings and opinions that carried greater weight.

No Male Paraeducator for Restroom Visits. Both Student's private physical therapist and the district's own orthopedic consultant agreed that Student — a teenage boy with cerebral palsy who could fall while partially undressed in a restroom — required a male paraeducator available for restroom visits to protect his safety and dignity. Despite discussing this need at four IEP team meetings, the district's February 2016 IEP made no mention of a male paraeducator. The ALJ found this omission denied Student a FAPE.

Failure to Notify Parent of Declined Assessments. Parent added occupational therapy and augmentative alternative communication assessments to the November 2016 assessment plan and signed it. The district conducted neither assessment and never told Parent — in writing or otherwise — that it was declining to do so. The ALJ found this failure to provide "prior written notice" was a procedural violation that deprived Parent of information needed to meaningfully participate in developing Student's 2017 IEP.

What Was Ordered

1. District shall fund an independent educational evaluation (IEE) in occupational therapy, chosen by Parent, at a rate consistent with district policies; district shall also fund two hours of the assessor's time to attend and present at the IEP team meeting.
2. District shall fund an IEE in augmentative alternative communication, chosen by Parent, on the same terms.
3. District shall fund the independent speech-language evaluation already completed by Parent's expert (Ms. Schnee) at her customary rate, consistent with district policies, and up to two hours of her time to attend Student's IEP to discuss her findings.
4. District shall fund 15 hours of direct, one-to-one speech therapy services through a nonpublic agency chosen by Parent, as compensatory education for one year of missed opportunity in communication development. Services shall follow Ms. Schnee's recommendations until the IEP team develops agreed-upon goals.
5. District shall hold an IEP team meeting within 30 calendar days of receiving all assessment reports to consider all evaluations, including Ms. Schnee's report.
6. District shall amend Student's IEP within five school days of the start of the 2017-2018 school year to include a trained male paraeducator available to Student whenever he needs to use the restroom, on campus or at any off-campus school activity.
7. All other relief requested by Student was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Changing a service delivery model requires current assessment data. The district's biggest mistake here was agreeing to change speech therapy services — from direct to consultation — without first assessing whether that change was appropriate for Student's specific needs. If a district proposes changing how or where a service is delivered, parents can and should ask: "What assessment data supports this change?"

2. Write your assessment requests directly on the assessment plan and keep a copy. Parent's decision to handwrite additional assessment areas on the district's November 2016 assessment plan and sign it created a clear paper trail. When the district failed to either conduct those assessments or explain in writing why it was declining, it committed a procedural violation that supported the claims in this case.

3. Dignity and privacy are part of FAPE. The ALJ confirmed that a teenage boy with a physical disability has a right to have a same-sex paraeducator available for restroom assistance. If your child has physical support needs that involve personal care, the IEP should specifically address who will provide that support and how privacy and dignity will be protected.

4. An independent evaluator can make a real difference. The independent speech-language evaluator in this case offered more comprehensive findings than the district's assessors and her opinions directly influenced the ALJ's conclusions. If you believe a district assessment was inadequate, you have the right to request an IEE at public expense — and this case shows that pursuing one can strengthen your position significantly.