District Wins Right to Assess Student Over Parent's Objection to School Psychologist

Whittier City School District filed for due process after a parent refused to consent to Student's triennial reassessment because Student did not want to speak to a school psychologist. ALJ June R. Lehrman ruled in favor of the District, finding that the reassessment was legally required and properly noticed, and that parents cannot place conditions on who conducts assessments. The District was authorized to proceed with the full assessment plan without parental consent.

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old boy eligible for special education under two categories: specific learning disability and speech or language impairment. He transferred into Whittier City School District in fall 2015 from a neighboring district. His last comprehensive assessment had been conducted in February 2014 — before he enrolled in Whittier — and the District never received a copy of that report. By fall 2016, more than three years had passed since that assessment, triggering the District's legal obligation to conduct a triennial reassessment.

The District sent home an assessment plan in November 2016 proposing evaluations in academic achievement, intellectual development, social and emotional functioning, and health. Parent refused to sign the plan, explaining that Student did not want to speak to a school psychologist. The District made repeated attempts — through the resource specialist, school psychologist, and special education director — to explain that the assessment involved no therapy or counseling, and that the psychologist would skip the direct student interview. Parent still refused. With no other legal option, the District filed for due process to obtain authorization to assess Student without parental consent. Parent did not appear at the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor. The evidence showed that Student's educational needs clearly warranted the reassessment. Without an updated evaluation, the IEP team had no reliable data to confirm Student's eligibility, measure his progress, or develop appropriate goals and services. The 2014 report was both outdated and unavailable to the District, making a new assessment even more critical.

The ALJ also found that the District had followed all required procedural steps: it sent the assessment plan home multiple times, provided written explanations of what each test involved, gave Parent well over the required 15 days to review and sign, and delivered copies of Parent's procedural rights on multiple occasions. All communications were in English, which the ALJ found to be Parent's native language based on the record.

Critically, the ALJ rejected Parent's objection to the school psychologist being named as an assessor. Under California law, only credentialed school psychologists may conduct cognitive and social-emotional assessments — no other professional is legally authorized to do so. The ALJ also relied on established legal authority holding that parents cannot place conditions on assessments, including demanding that a particular person not conduct them. The right to select assessment tools and assessors belongs to the school district, not the parent.

What Was Ordered

The District was authorized to conduct Student's reassessment according to its November 15, 2016 assessment plan, without Parent's consent.
The District was required to notify Parent in writing within 10 business days of the scheduled assessment dates, times, and locations.
Parent was ordered to cooperate in making Student available for assessment and to complete and return any documents the District reasonably requested.
Parent was ordered not to attach any conditions to the assessments, including conditions about who may conduct them.
If Parent failed to comply, the District would not be obligated to continue providing Student with special education services until Parent complied with the order.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot veto a specific assessor as a condition of consenting to an assessment. The law gives school districts the authority to choose which qualified professionals conduct evaluations. If you have concerns about a particular assessor, you can raise them — but you cannot refuse the entire assessment on that basis. The District's right to evaluate prevails.
Triennial reassessments are legally required, and your child's continued services depend on them. Federal and California law require reassessments at least every three years. If you withhold consent without agreement from the District, the District can go to a hearing and get permission to assess anyway — and a judge may order that services can be withheld if you still refuse to cooperate.
A school psychologist's role in assessments is not the same as therapy. The ALJ accepted the District's explanation that cognitive and social-emotional testing is standardized and does not involve counseling or personal conversations about a child's life. If your child is anxious about this process, ask the district what accommodations they can offer — such as skipping the direct student interview, as the psychologist offered here — rather than refusing consent entirely.
If you don't appear at a due process hearing, the case proceeds without you. Parent did not attend the hearing, and the District won on every point. If you receive notice of a due process proceeding — even one filed by the district — it is critical to participate, because the outcome is legally binding regardless of whether you show up.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District was authorized to conduct Student's reassessment according to its November 15, 2016 assessment plan, without Parent's consent.
The District was required to notify Parent in writing within 10 business days of the scheduled assessment dates, times, and locations.
Parent was ordered to cooperate in making Student available for assessment and to complete and return any documents the District reasonably requested.
Parent was ordered not to attach any conditions to the assessments, including conditions about who may conduct them.
If Parent failed to comply, the District would not be obligated to continue providing Student with special education services until Parent complied with the order.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot veto a specific assessor as a condition of consenting to an assessment. The law gives school districts the authority to choose which qualified professionals conduct evaluations. If you have concerns about a particular assessor, you can raise them — but you cannot refuse the entire assessment on that basis. The District's right to evaluate prevails.
Triennial reassessments are legally required, and your child's continued services depend on them. Federal and California law require reassessments at least every three years. If you withhold consent without agreement from the District, the District can go to a hearing and get permission to assess anyway — and a judge may order that services can be withheld if you still refuse to cooperate.
A school psychologist's role in assessments is not the same as therapy. The ALJ accepted the District's explanation that cognitive and social-emotional testing is standardized and does not involve counseling or personal conversations about a child's life. If your child is anxious about this process, ask the district what accommodations they can offer — such as skipping the direct student interview, as the psychologist offered here — rather than refusing consent entirely.
If you don't appear at a due process hearing, the case proceeds without you. Parent did not attend the hearing, and the District won on every point. If you receive notice of a due process proceeding — even one filed by the district — it is critical to participate, because the outcome is legally binding regardless of whether you show up.