Lafayette Must Cover Student's Special Ed Despite Father's Temporary Move Out of District

A family with joint custody placed their son with ADHD and mood disorders in a private school after Lafayette School District denied him special education eligibility. When the father temporarily moved closer to the private school to reduce a brutal commute, Lafayette argued it was no longer responsible for the student's education. An ALJ ruled that because the mother continued to live in Lafayette throughout the entire period, Lafayette remained the responsible school district.

What Happened

The student is a 13-year-old boy diagnosed with ADHD, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, and sensory modulation disorder. He attended Lafayette public schools from kindergarten through fifth grade. In June 2015, Lafayette held an IEP meeting and denied him eligibility for special education services. His parents disagreed and, believing he could not handle general education at the district's middle school, unilaterally placed him at Esther B. Clark School, a private special education school in Palo Alto — a one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half hour drive each way from Lafayette.

The parents shared joint legal and physical custody roughly 50-50. Both parents originally lived within Lafayette's boundaries. The long daily commute was taking a severe toll on the family, and in January 2016 the father temporarily rented a home in Portola Valley — just five miles from Esther B. Clark — to ease the burden. The mother continued to live in Lafayette throughout the entire period in question (June 2015 through May 2017). The case was bifurcated so the residency question — whether Lafayette was still responsible for the student's special education — could be decided before the other disputes were resolved.

What the District Did Wrong

Claimed the student was not a Lafayette resident without legal basis. Lafayette argued that because the father moved to Portola Valley and the student spent most school nights there, Portola Valley's district was now responsible — not Lafayette. This argument directly contradicted California Education Code § 48200, which bases school district responsibility on where a parent or legal guardian resides, not where a child physically sleeps most nights.
Enforced an unwritten, unapproved "three school nights" policy. Lafayette's registrar applied an informal policy requiring students with parents in multiple districts to sleep at least three school nights per week in Lafayette to establish the district's responsibility. This policy was never put in writing, never approved by the school board, and never communicated to parents. The ALJ found this policy arbitrary, contrary to statute, and inconsistent with due process.
Misapplied Education Code § 48204(a)(7). Lafayette claimed its three-night rule was grounded in state law. The ALJ found that the cited code section applies only to a very specific situation — a non-resident parent who both lives and works within a district at least three days per week. That provision had no application to this family's circumstances, where the mother was simply a full-time resident of Lafayette.
Ignored the mother's continued Lafayette residency. Lafayette argued Student had not lived with his mother since the parents separated. The evidence showed otherwise: Student regularly stayed with his mother on weekends and split custody was flexible and ongoing. The mother's uninterrupted residence in Lafayette was legally sufficient on its own to establish Lafayette's responsibility, regardless of what the father did.

What Was Ordered

Lafayette School District is the local education agency with jurisdictional responsibility to provide special education to the student for the entire period from June 5, 2015, through May 7, 2017.
The remaining issues in the case (including FAPE, reimbursement, and other disputes) were referred to a continued prehearing conference and due process hearing scheduled for late October and November 2017.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's responsibility follows the parent's address, not the child's bedroom. Under California law, if either parent with legal custody lives within a school district, that district can be responsible for your child's special education — even if your child physically spends more nights at the other parent's home in a different district. Do not let a district tell you otherwise.
Unwritten district policies carry little legal weight. Lafayette enforced a "three school nights" rule that was never formally adopted, never put in writing, and never shared with parents. If a district applies a policy that affects your child's access to services, ask for it in writing and ask for the school board resolution that approved it. Unadopted, informal policies cannot override state law.
A temporary move for a legitimate reason does not automatically change residency. The father moved closer to the private school purely to reduce an unsustainable commute, with every intention of returning. The ALJ recognized that this kind of temporary, purpose-driven relocation does not sever the family's connection to Lafayette. Context and intent matter in residency determinations.
Joint custody families have extra protection. The ALJ explicitly rejected the idea that residency should be decided by counting custody nights or analyzing custody agreements. Courts have recognized that family custody arrangements are complex and personal — they should not determine which school district bears legal responsibility for a disabled child's education.
If a district denies eligibility and you make a private placement, preserve your residency documentation. This family's dispute became complicated in part because of confusion about where the student "really" lived after the placement at Esther B. Clark. Keep records — school enrollment forms, utility bills, lease agreements, and testimony from neighbors or friends — showing that at least one parent maintained continuous residency in the district throughout any dispute.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Claimed the student was not a Lafayette resident without legal basis. Lafayette argued that because the father moved to Portola Valley and the student spent most school nights there, Portola Valley's district was now responsible — not Lafayette. This argument directly contradicted California Education Code § 48200, which bases school district responsibility on where a parent or legal guardian resides, not where a child physically sleeps most nights.
Enforced an unwritten, unapproved "three school nights" policy. Lafayette's registrar applied an informal policy requiring students with parents in multiple districts to sleep at least three school nights per week in Lafayette to establish the district's responsibility. This policy was never put in writing, never approved by the school board, and never communicated to parents. The ALJ found this policy arbitrary, contrary to statute, and inconsistent with due process.
Misapplied Education Code § 48204(a)(7). Lafayette claimed its three-night rule was grounded in state law. The ALJ found that the cited code section applies only to a very specific situation — a non-resident parent who both lives and works within a district at least three days per week. That provision had no application to this family's circumstances, where the mother was simply a full-time resident of Lafayette.
Ignored the mother's continued Lafayette residency. Lafayette argued Student had not lived with his mother since the parents separated. The evidence showed otherwise: Student regularly stayed with his mother on weekends and split custody was flexible and ongoing. The mother's uninterrupted residence in Lafayette was legally sufficient on its own to establish Lafayette's responsibility, regardless of what the father did.

What Was Ordered

Lafayette School District is the local education agency with jurisdictional responsibility to provide special education to the student for the entire period from June 5, 2015, through May 7, 2017.
The remaining issues in the case (including FAPE, reimbursement, and other disputes) were referred to a continued prehearing conference and due process hearing scheduled for late October and November 2017.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's responsibility follows the parent's address, not the child's bedroom. Under California law, if either parent with legal custody lives within a school district, that district can be responsible for your child's special education — even if your child physically spends more nights at the other parent's home in a different district. Do not let a district tell you otherwise.
Unwritten district policies carry little legal weight. Lafayette enforced a "three school nights" rule that was never formally adopted, never put in writing, and never shared with parents. If a district applies a policy that affects your child's access to services, ask for it in writing and ask for the school board resolution that approved it. Unadopted, informal policies cannot override state law.
A temporary move for a legitimate reason does not automatically change residency. The father moved closer to the private school purely to reduce an unsustainable commute, with every intention of returning. The ALJ recognized that this kind of temporary, purpose-driven relocation does not sever the family's connection to Lafayette. Context and intent matter in residency determinations.
Joint custody families have extra protection. The ALJ explicitly rejected the idea that residency should be decided by counting custody nights or analyzing custody agreements. Courts have recognized that family custody arrangements are complex and personal — they should not determine which school district bears legal responsibility for a disabled child's education.
If a district denies eligibility and you make a private placement, preserve your residency documentation. This family's dispute became complicated in part because of confusion about where the student "really" lived after the placement at Esther B. Clark. Keep records — school enrollment forms, utility bills, lease agreements, and testimony from neighbors or friends — showing that at least one parent maintained continuous residency in the district throughout any dispute.