District's Manifestation Determination Upheld After Student's On-Campus Fight

A 17-year-old student with a specific learning disability and ADHD was suspended and expelled after a violent on-campus fight at Liberty Union High School District. His parent challenged the district's manifestation determination, arguing the assault was caused by his ADHD and that the district failed to implement his behavior intervention plan. The ALJ sided with the district, finding the fight was premeditated and driven by personal conflict, not disability, and that the behavior plan was not violated.

What Happened

A 17-year-old eleventh grader at Heritage High School received special education services for a specific learning disability rooted in an auditory processing deficit and had an outside diagnosis of ADHD. His school history showed a pattern of oppositional behavior in class — arguing with adults, refusing to follow rules, and blurting out remarks — but no history of physical assault. In January 2017, a simmering dispute with another student (stemming from a confrontation involving his sister) came to a head on campus. After an initial tense encounter near the principal's office, the student was placed inside the principal's office to cool down. He then looked through the window, believed the other student was disrespecting him again, burst out of the office ignoring multiple adult orders to stop, and initiated a sustained physical fight that injured the other student and inadvertently struck a security guard. He was suspended, recommended for expulsion, and moved to an alternative setting.

At a manifestation determination meeting on February 2, 2017, the IEP team — including the school psychologist, assistant principal, case manager, and director of student services — unanimously found that the fight was not caused by, and had no direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disabilities, and was not the result of any failure to implement his IEP behavior intervention plan. The parent challenged that determination through this expedited due process hearing, arguing that the student's ADHD-related impulsivity caused the fight and that the behavior plan was not properly followed. The ALJ affirmed the district's determination on all counts.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on both issues presented:

The fight was not impulsive — it was sustained and premeditated. The student did not act without thinking. He deliberately left the principal's office, issued threats and curses while charging toward the other student, ignored orders from four adults to stop, and fought so intensely that it took two to four minutes for four adults to separate the boys. An hour later he was still threatening further action. This is sustained rage, not an impulsive disability-related reaction.
ADHD had not previously driven the student to physical violence. Expert testimony from a licensed school psychologist (Dr. Bylund) established that a disability like ADHD would be expected to produce a consistent pattern of behavior across settings and over time. No such pattern of assaultive conduct existed in this student's record. Two and a half years of high school produced only a single ambiguous "fight" entry the student's mother said he did not start, and one pencil-throwing incident — neither connected to his disability.
The student's own words and actions undermined the disability-causation claim. At the manifestation determination meeting, the student himself said nothing connecting his disabilities to the fight. His post-fight statements ("He's not going to do that to me" and "I'm going to do what I'm going to do") reflected personal animosity toward the other student, not an impulsive disability-related episode. His written statement also attributed the fight to their ongoing conflict.
The behavior intervention plan applied only to in-class conduct with adults. The plan addressed oppositional behavior in classroom settings. It contained no provisions governing conduct outside class or interactions with peers. The principal's act of separating the student and placing him in his office was actually consistent with the plan's general strategy of removing the student from tense situations. The plan's failure to prevent the fight in this extraordinary circumstance did not mean it was not implemented.
The burden of proof rested on the student, and he did not meet it. The student argued there was "no data" showing the behavior plan was implemented correctly — but it was the student's burden to prove it was not implemented, and he provided no such evidence.

What Was Ordered

The district's manifestation determination of February 2, 2017 — finding the student's conduct was not a manifestation of his disabilities — was affirmed in full.
All relief sought by the student in the expedited hearing was denied.
The student's expulsion (with suspended expulsion conditions set by the school board on April 12, 2017) was left in place.

Why This Matters for Parents

A disability diagnosis alone is not enough to win a manifestation determination. Parents must show a direct and substantial link between the specific conduct at issue and the specific effects of the disability. General labels like "ADHD causes impulsivity" will not carry the day without evidence connecting those effects to what actually happened.
Pattern of behavior matters enormously. ALJs and IEP teams will look at whether the student has ever engaged in similar conduct before. If your child has never been physically aggressive in years of school records, it will be very difficult to argue that a single violent incident was disability-driven. Document disability-related behaviors consistently over time.
Your child's own words and conduct at and after the incident are powerful evidence. If a student does not claim disability causation at the manifestation meeting, and their own statements point to personal conflict as the cause, that will weigh heavily against a manifestation finding. Prepare your child to understand the significance of the meeting before it happens.
Behavior intervention plans must specifically address the conduct in question to be relevant. A behavior plan written for classroom arguments with adults will not help you challenge a discipline decision involving a peer fight outside class. Advocate for BIPs that are broad enough to address all environments where your child may struggle.
You have the right to request updated assessments before a manifestation determination. The district offered to conduct triennial assessments and reconvene the manifestation meeting in this case — and the family declined. If your child's assessments are outdated, consider whether accepting that offer could strengthen your case, even if it means agreeing to a short timeline waiver.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on both issues presented:

The fight was not impulsive — it was sustained and premeditated. The student did not act without thinking. He deliberately left the principal's office, issued threats and curses while charging toward the other student, ignored orders from four adults to stop, and fought so intensely that it took two to four minutes for four adults to separate the boys. An hour later he was still threatening further action. This is sustained rage, not an impulsive disability-related reaction.
ADHD had not previously driven the student to physical violence. Expert testimony from a licensed school psychologist (Dr. Bylund) established that a disability like ADHD would be expected to produce a consistent pattern of behavior across settings and over time. No such pattern of assaultive conduct existed in this student's record. Two and a half years of high school produced only a single ambiguous "fight" entry the student's mother said he did not start, and one pencil-throwing incident — neither connected to his disability.
The student's own words and actions undermined the disability-causation claim. At the manifestation determination meeting, the student himself said nothing connecting his disabilities to the fight. His post-fight statements ("He's not going to do that to me" and "I'm going to do what I'm going to do") reflected personal animosity toward the other student, not an impulsive disability-related episode. His written statement also attributed the fight to their ongoing conflict.
The behavior intervention plan applied only to in-class conduct with adults. The plan addressed oppositional behavior in classroom settings. It contained no provisions governing conduct outside class or interactions with peers. The principal's act of separating the student and placing him in his office was actually consistent with the plan's general strategy of removing the student from tense situations. The plan's failure to prevent the fight in this extraordinary circumstance did not mean it was not implemented.
The burden of proof rested on the student, and he did not meet it. The student argued there was "no data" showing the behavior plan was implemented correctly — but it was the student's burden to prove it was not implemented, and he provided no such evidence.

What Was Ordered

The district's manifestation determination of February 2, 2017 — finding the student's conduct was not a manifestation of his disabilities — was affirmed in full.
All relief sought by the student in the expedited hearing was denied.
The student's expulsion (with suspended expulsion conditions set by the school board on April 12, 2017) was left in place.

Why This Matters for Parents

A disability diagnosis alone is not enough to win a manifestation determination. Parents must show a direct and substantial link between the specific conduct at issue and the specific effects of the disability. General labels like "ADHD causes impulsivity" will not carry the day without evidence connecting those effects to what actually happened.
Pattern of behavior matters enormously. ALJs and IEP teams will look at whether the student has ever engaged in similar conduct before. If your child has never been physically aggressive in years of school records, it will be very difficult to argue that a single violent incident was disability-driven. Document disability-related behaviors consistently over time.
Your child's own words and conduct at and after the incident are powerful evidence. If a student does not claim disability causation at the manifestation meeting, and their own statements point to personal conflict as the cause, that will weigh heavily against a manifestation finding. Prepare your child to understand the significance of the meeting before it happens.
Behavior intervention plans must specifically address the conduct in question to be relevant. A behavior plan written for classroom arguments with adults will not help you challenge a discipline decision involving a peer fight outside class. Advocate for BIPs that are broad enough to address all environments where your child may struggle.
You have the right to request updated assessments before a manifestation determination. The district offered to conduct triennial assessments and reconvene the manifestation meeting in this case — and the family declined. If your child's assessments are outdated, consider whether accepting that offer could strengthen your case, even if it means agreeing to a short timeline waiver.