Mother's FAPE Claim Dismissed After Father Revoked Special Ed Consent in Joint Custody Case

A mother filed for due process seeking to reinstate her daughter's special education services after the father — who shared joint legal custody — revoked consent and withdrew the student from special education in 2015. The ALJ dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that OAH has no authority to override a joint custody arrangement or force reinstatement of services when one legal custodian has validly revoked consent. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

What Happened

A 12-year-old student with eligibility under speech and language impairment and autistic-like behaviors had been receiving special education services in the Los Alamitos Unified School District since 2012. Her parents were divorced and shared joint legal custody, including equal educational decision-making rights. In May 2015, following a triennial reassessment in which the district determined the student was no longer eligible for special education, the parents split: Father agreed with the district's finding of ineligibility, while Mother did not. Because the parents disagreed, the district initially took no action and the student briefly continued receiving services under "stay put." However, on May 29, 2015, Father sent the district a written revocation of consent for the continued provision of special education and related services. The district honored that revocation and returned the student to general education as of June 2, 2015.

Nearly two years later, in April 2017, Mother requested that the district immediately reinstate the student's IEP. The district declined, explaining it could not do so without both parents' consent, and Father had not given it. Unable to obtain Father's agreement or a court order granting her sole educational rights, Mother filed for due process on April 28, 2017. The hearing was bifurcated: the ALJ first addressed a threshold question of whether OAH even had jurisdiction to hear the case before proceeding to the merits.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ dismissed the entire complaint for lack of jurisdiction, based on the following findings:

Both parents held equal educational rights. The 2009 family court order granted Mother and Father joint legal custody, and that order was never modified. Under California and federal law, both parents retained equal authority to make educational decisions for their daughter, including decisions about special education.
Father's revocation of consent was legally valid. Under federal IDEA regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(4)), any parent may revoke consent for special education services in writing at any time. Once Father did so, the district was legally prohibited from continuing to provide services and could not be found in violation of FAPE for stopping them.
OAH cannot override a family court's custody arrangement. Mother's core complaint — that Father should not have been able to unilaterally withdraw the student from special education — is really a dispute about which parent's educational decision controls. That is a family law question for the superior court, not a special education question for OAH. OAH has no jurisdiction to override or second-guess a family court custody order.
The assessment claims were either time-barred or moot. Mother also alleged the district failed to properly assess the student's mental health, speech-language, and occupational therapy needs. The ALJ found these claims either fell outside the two-year statute of limitations (the relevant IEP meeting was May 20, 2015, and Father revoked consent nine days later) or arose from an independent evaluation obtained in December 2016 — long after the student had been removed from special education. Because the district had no FAPE obligation after Father's revocation, OAH had no authority to adjudicate these assessment claims.

What Was Ordered

Mother's entire complaint was dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
No services, assessments, or compensatory education were ordered.
The district was not found to have violated FAPE or any procedural requirement.

Why This Matters for Parents

In a joint custody situation, either parent can revoke special education consent — and it sticks. Under the IDEA, consent revocation by any parent with educational rights is legally sufficient. If you and your co-parent disagree about special education, the parent who revokes consent wins at the school district level unless a court says otherwise.
OAH cannot resolve disputes between divorced parents about educational authority. If your co-parent revokes consent or blocks special education services, a due process hearing is not the right tool. You must go back to family court and seek an order granting you sole educational decision-making authority before the school district is required to act on your requests alone.
Act quickly — the two-year statute of limitations is strict. Mother waited nearly two years after Father revoked consent before filing for due process. By then, most of her potential claims were time-barred. If you believe your child's rights have been violated, consult a special education attorney promptly and do not delay filing.
Get your custody order updated if your co-parent's decisions are harming your child. If you have joint legal custody and your co-parent is making special education decisions you believe are harmful, seek a family court order specifying that you have sole authority over educational decisions — or that both parents must consent to exit a child from special education. A general joint custody order gives each parent equal power.
A district that honors a revocation of consent is not violating FAPE. Once a parent revokes consent in writing, the district is legally shielded from FAPE claims arising from stopping services. The district in this case followed the law. Parents should understand that the school is not the right target if the barrier is a co-parent's decision-making authority.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ dismissed the entire complaint for lack of jurisdiction, based on the following findings:

Both parents held equal educational rights. The 2009 family court order granted Mother and Father joint legal custody, and that order was never modified. Under California and federal law, both parents retained equal authority to make educational decisions for their daughter, including decisions about special education.
Father's revocation of consent was legally valid. Under federal IDEA regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(4)), any parent may revoke consent for special education services in writing at any time. Once Father did so, the district was legally prohibited from continuing to provide services and could not be found in violation of FAPE for stopping them.
OAH cannot override a family court's custody arrangement. Mother's core complaint — that Father should not have been able to unilaterally withdraw the student from special education — is really a dispute about which parent's educational decision controls. That is a family law question for the superior court, not a special education question for OAH. OAH has no jurisdiction to override or second-guess a family court custody order.
The assessment claims were either time-barred or moot. Mother also alleged the district failed to properly assess the student's mental health, speech-language, and occupational therapy needs. The ALJ found these claims either fell outside the two-year statute of limitations (the relevant IEP meeting was May 20, 2015, and Father revoked consent nine days later) or arose from an independent evaluation obtained in December 2016 — long after the student had been removed from special education. Because the district had no FAPE obligation after Father's revocation, OAH had no authority to adjudicate these assessment claims.

What Was Ordered

Mother's entire complaint was dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
No services, assessments, or compensatory education were ordered.
The district was not found to have violated FAPE or any procedural requirement.

Why This Matters for Parents

In a joint custody situation, either parent can revoke special education consent — and it sticks. Under the IDEA, consent revocation by any parent with educational rights is legally sufficient. If you and your co-parent disagree about special education, the parent who revokes consent wins at the school district level unless a court says otherwise.
OAH cannot resolve disputes between divorced parents about educational authority. If your co-parent revokes consent or blocks special education services, a due process hearing is not the right tool. You must go back to family court and seek an order granting you sole educational decision-making authority before the school district is required to act on your requests alone.
Act quickly — the two-year statute of limitations is strict. Mother waited nearly two years after Father revoked consent before filing for due process. By then, most of her potential claims were time-barred. If you believe your child's rights have been violated, consult a special education attorney promptly and do not delay filing.
Get your custody order updated if your co-parent's decisions are harming your child. If you have joint legal custody and your co-parent is making special education decisions you believe are harmful, seek a family court order specifying that you have sole authority over educational decisions — or that both parents must consent to exit a child from special education. A general joint custody order gives each parent equal power.
A district that honors a revocation of consent is not violating FAPE. Once a parent revokes consent in writing, the district is legally shielded from FAPE claims arising from stopping services. The district in this case followed the law. Parents should understand that the school is not the right target if the barrier is a co-parent's decision-making authority.