Temecula Valley Unified Prevails on All Claims Over Behavior Plan and IEP Implementation

What Happened

Student was an 18-year-old high school student at Great Oak High School in Temecula Valley Unified School District. He sustained a traumatic brain injury as a toddler, which led to cognitive challenges and a non-convulsive seizure disorder. He was adopted at age five and initially displayed significant emotional and behavioral difficulties. He qualified for special education under traumatic brain injury and other health impairment. Despite his disabilities, Student was placed primarily in general education classes and was on track to earn a regular high school diploma.

Beginning in the spring of 2016, Student's behaviors at home escalated dramatically — he became physically aggressive with Parent, law enforcement was called on at least one occasion, and home-based behavioral therapy was required twice. Parent grew increasingly concerned that these behaviors were also occurring at school, and that the district was failing to address them. Parent also alleged that Student's instructional aide was completing his homework for him, that teachers were artificially inflating his grades, that the district failed to provide required assistive technology, and that his transition plan was inadequate. Parent filed for due process in April 2017 after Student was unilaterally enrolled in a residential treatment program in San Diego in January 2017.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled against the parent on every issue. On the behavior plan claims, the ALJ found a critical distinction: while Student's home behaviors were severe and well-documented, the evidence showed that Student displayed only minor behavioral issues at school during the same period. He had three documented incidents at school between March and December 2016 — two verbal confrontations with his case carrier and one push of a peer — none of which rose to the level of aggression Parent described at home. Teachers, aides, and the school counselor all credibly testified that Student was generally on task, took appropriate breaks, and made academic progress. The ALJ gave little weight to Parent's behavior expert, noting that he had no direct observation of Student at school, had no high school experience, and based his conclusions largely on speculation that home behaviors must have mirrored school behaviors.

On the assistive technology claim, the ALJ found that the district did provide Student with the required touch-screen laptop and talk-to-text software. Student simply refused to use it because he found setup too slow. The district could not be faulted for a student's own refusal to use properly provided tools. On the homework and grade inflation claims, the ALJ credited the direct testimony of Student's teachers — each of whom stated clearly that Student earned his grades — and found that the aide's assistance in going over assignments and transcribing Student's dictated answers was consistent with the note-taking and assistance accommodations in the IEP, not a violation of it. On transition services, the ALJ found that Parent's independent transition assessor had performed very few such assessments, lacked high school experience, and never presented her findings to the district, while the district's case carrier had a decade of relevant experience and conducted a thorough assessment. Finally, on the failure-to-file-for-due-process claim, the ALJ found no harm because Parent had removed Student from the district before the final IEP meeting was concluded, and Student was quickly thriving academically at his new placement.

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. The district prevailed on all issues heard and decided in this case.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Home behaviors and school behaviors are legally separate. A district is generally not required to revise a behavior plan to address behaviors that occur only at home, as long as the student is making educational progress in school. If you believe your child's home behaviors are connected to school, document what is happening at school directly — through observations, written communication with staff, and review of data logs — not just through your child's own reports.

2. Review your child's data logs regularly and respond in writing. The ALJ noted that Parent received weekly data logs but did not consistently review them, question them, or request changes in writing. Silence can be interpreted as acceptance. If you have concerns about whether the data accurately reflects what is happening, raise those concerns in writing promptly.

3. Independent experts must have directly relevant experience. Parent's behavior analyst expert and transition assessor were both given little weight because they lacked high school experience and had not directly observed Student at school. When hiring independent experts, choose professionals with specific experience in the setting and age group that matches your child's situation — and make sure they observe your child in the actual school environment when possible.

4. Withholding information from the district can backfire. Parent refused to allow her private home behavioral therapy provider (TBS) to share information with the district. This prevented the IEP team from having a full picture of Student's situation — and the ALJ noted it. Sharing information between your child's support providers and the school team generally strengthens your position, not weakens it.

5. An independent assessment must actually be shared with the district to have effect. Parent's independent transition assessor completed her report but never presented it to the district before Student was removed from the school. The IEP team cannot consider information it never received. Always present independent assessments to the district at or before the IEP meeting where they are relevant.