District Wins: Parent's Claims About Behavior Plans, AT Assessment, and Placement Denied

What Happened

Student was a highly intelligent 12-year-old boy with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) attending Community Roots Academy, a public charter school operating under Capistrano Unified School District. Despite his superior intellectual ability — he qualified for the Gifted and Talented Education program and won recognition from the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth — Student struggled with written expression, organization, staying on task, and off-task behaviors like excessive talking and wandering the classroom. These difficulties worsened when he did not consistently take his ADHD medication.

Parent requested a series of evaluations and program changes over the course of the 2015–2016 school year, including an assistive technology assessment, a functional behavior assessment, a behavior intervention plan, and a change in Student's eligibility category from speech-language impairment to specific learning disability. She also sought placement at the Child Development School at UC Irvine, a private school she believed was better suited to Student's needs. The district offered instead general education with specialized academic instruction, accommodations including access to a laptop and dictation software, and eventually agreed to conduct a functional behavior assessment — but Parent withdrew Student to the private school before the assessment could be completed. Parent filed a due process complaint in February 2017 raising six issues, and the hearing was held over four days in May 2017.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. On the question of an assistive technology assessment, the ALJ found that Student already successfully accessed his education using a school-provided Chromebook for writing and dictation software for note-taking, and that even Parent's own independent evaluator (Dr. Passaro) did not recommend an assistive technology assessment. Because Student had no fine motor deficits and could access the curriculum with existing tools, no assessment was required.

On the behavior issues, the ALJ found that the district addressed Student's off-task behaviors through classroom accommodations, token reward systems, and eventually IEP goals — and that no formal functional behavior assessment was required until Dr. Passaro recommended one in May 2016. The district agreed to conduct that assessment, but Parent unilaterally enrolled Student in the private school before it could be completed. The private school's own program, the ALJ noted, mirrored what the district was already doing.

On the parental participation and predetermination claims, the ALJ found that Parent attended both the January 2016 and May 2016 IEP meetings, asked questions, provided extensive input, brought an attorney, and received draft IEP materials in advance. Disagreeing with the team's conclusions is not the same as being excluded from the process. The ALJ also found that the district considered Dr. Passaro's independent evaluation with an open mind and incorporated most of his recommendations — and Dr. Passaro himself agreed with the district's final placement offer. On implementation, the ALJ found that a brief administrative delay in processing Parent's consent (about 18 school days, many of them shortened year-end days) did not constitute a material failure to implement the IEP. Finally, the ALJ found the IEP was clear enough that any receiving district could understand and implement it.

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for relief were denied on all six issues.
2. Respondents (Capistrano Unified School District and Community Roots Academy) prevailed on every issue presented at hearing.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district does not have to conduct an assistive technology assessment if the student can already access their education with available tools. If your child is successfully using a school laptop, tablet, or other device already in the classroom, the district may argue that no formal AT assessment is needed. If you believe your child needs something more specialized, gather evidence showing the current tools are not enough — ideally from an independent expert who specifically recommends an assessment.

2. Agreeing to participate in an IEP meeting is not the same as agreeing with the outcome — but courts expect you to show up, speak up, and document your disagreement. The ALJ in this case repeatedly noted that Parent attended meetings, asked questions, and expressed disagreement. Paradoxically, this worked against the predetermination claim. Keep records of what you asked for, what the district said, and what was left out — not just that you attended.

3. If a district agrees to conduct an assessment, give them time to complete it before withdrawing your child. Parent's decision to enroll Student in the private school before the agreed-upon functional behavior assessment was completed undercut her claim that the district failed to conduct it. If you are considering a unilateral placement change, consult an advocate or attorney first about how it may affect your legal claims.

4. Your independent evaluator's opinions carry more weight when they support your position — but can work against you when they agree with the district. In this case, Dr. Passaro ultimately agreed with the district's placement offer at the May 2016 IEP meeting. When your own expert sides with the district on a key issue, it significantly weakens your case. Before an IEP meeting, discuss with your evaluator in advance what positions they will take, and make sure their recommendations are clearly documented in their written report.