District Wins Right to Assess Autistic Student Over Parents' Refusal to Consent

Carlsbad Unified School District filed for due process after parents of a 14-year-old student with autism refused to consent to a triennial reassessment. The ALJ found that the district had properly provided the assessment plan and given parents more than the required 15 days to respond, authorizing the district to assess the student without parental consent. The ALJ declined to issue the district's requested advisory opinion on what would happen if the student refused to participate in assessments.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old with autism who lived within the boundaries of Carlsbad Unified School District. This case arose out of an earlier legal dispute: the family and the district had previously settled two due process cases, and as part of that settlement, the district agreed to reassess Student in spring 2017. The district promised to send an assessment plan by April 1, 2017, and the parents agreed to consent to the plan and return it within five business days.

The district sent the assessment plan on March 29, 2017, covering areas including academic achievement, intellectual development, language and speech, social/emotional functioning, motor development, health, and a functional behavior assessment — along with a commitment to review the independent educational evaluation (IEE) the family had provided in September 2016. Despite repeated follow-up emails, in-person meetings, and multiple copies of the same assessment plan, parents never signed and returned the consent form. After 32 days without consent, the district filed for due process seeking authorization to assess Student without the parents' approval.

What the ALJ Found

The only real dispute in this case was whether parents had been given the required 15 days to review and sign the assessment plan before the district filed for due process. Parents argued that they had received a different, revised assessment plan on April 25, 2017 — which would have restarted the 15-day clock — meaning the district filed too soon.

The ALJ rejected that argument. The evidence — including a chain of emails with electronic attachments — showed that the district sent the exact same assessment plan every time, starting on March 29, 2017. The district's director of pupil services was found credible in testifying that no changes were ever made. Even accepting the most conservative timeline (counting from April 17, 2017, when the mother acknowledged receiving the plan), parents still had 14 days before the district filed — just one day short of the 15-day requirement. However, the ALJ counted from March 29, 2017, when the plan was first sent, giving parents 32 days total. All legal requirements for overriding parental consent had been met.

The district also asked the ALJ to issue an order stating that if parents didn't allow Student to participate in the assessments, the district would have no obligation to provide special education services. The ALJ declined. Special education hearings address real, current disputes — not hypothetical future situations. The ALJ explained this would be an advisory opinion, which OAH does not issue.

What Was Ordered

The district may assess Student pursuant to the March 29, 2017 assessment plan without parental consent.
All other relief requested by the district — including the advisory opinion on future FAPE obligations — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Settlement agreements create binding obligations on both sides. In this case, the parents had specifically agreed in a prior settlement to consent to reassessment. When they later refused, that history worked against them. If you sign a settlement agreement, understand that it can be enforced — including provisions requiring you to cooperate with assessments.
The 15-day review period starts when the assessment plan is first properly sent — not when you acknowledge receiving it. Parents argued the clock should restart when they got a copy at the school office on April 25. The ALJ disagreed and counted from the original March 29 email. Make sure you respond promptly and in writing to assessment plans, even if you have concerns.
If you believe an assessment plan is missing something, check carefully before assuming. Here, the mother asked the district to add a functional behavior assessment and IEE review — but both items were already in the original plan. Reading the assessment plan thoroughly and confirming what's included in writing can prevent confusion and delay.
ALJs will not issue "what if" rulings about future scenarios. The district asked for a preemptive ruling that it could drop Student from services if the family didn't cooperate. The ALJ refused, noting that hearings must address real, current disputes — not hypotheticals. This cuts both ways: parents cannot be penalized in advance for things that haven't happened yet.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district may assess Student pursuant to the March 29, 2017 assessment plan without parental consent.
All other relief requested by the district — including the advisory opinion on future FAPE obligations — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Settlement agreements create binding obligations on both sides. In this case, the parents had specifically agreed in a prior settlement to consent to reassessment. When they later refused, that history worked against them. If you sign a settlement agreement, understand that it can be enforced — including provisions requiring you to cooperate with assessments.
The 15-day review period starts when the assessment plan is first properly sent — not when you acknowledge receiving it. Parents argued the clock should restart when they got a copy at the school office on April 25. The ALJ disagreed and counted from the original March 29 email. Make sure you respond promptly and in writing to assessment plans, even if you have concerns.
If you believe an assessment plan is missing something, check carefully before assuming. Here, the mother asked the district to add a functional behavior assessment and IEE review — but both items were already in the original plan. Reading the assessment plan thoroughly and confirming what's included in writing can prevent confusion and delay.
ALJs will not issue "what if" rulings about future scenarios. The district asked for a preemptive ruling that it could drop Student from services if the family didn't cooperate. The ALJ refused, noting that hearings must address real, current disputes — not hypotheticals. This cuts both ways: parents cannot be penalized in advance for things that haven't happened yet.