District Not Responsible for FAPE When Parent Lived Outside District Boundaries

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old young woman who had been enrolled at Berkeley High School, a school within Berkeley Unified School District (District). However, Parent actually resided in Richmond, in Contra Costa County — outside District's boundaries. To allow Student to attend Berkeley High, Parent had arranged for Student to stay with her grandmother, who lived in Berkeley, during the school week, while Student returned home to Parent in Richmond on weekends. District was not aware of this arrangement when Student was originally enrolled.

During Student's 10th and 11th grade years, her behavior and circumstances deteriorated significantly. She was arrested and placed in juvenile detention twice, ran away from multiple placements, and eventually attended two private residential treatment centers. Parent requested that District assess Student for special education eligibility in October 2016, and District did conduct a psychoeducational assessment in January 2017. At an IEP team meeting in March 2017, the District team concluded Student was not eligible for special education. Parent disagreed and filed for due process, arguing that District had failed to conduct adequate assessments, wrongly found Student ineligible, and violated procedural rights by not providing complete educational records. Parent also sought reimbursement for the private residential treatment programs.

What the ALJ Found

The central finding in this case was about where Parent actually lived — because under California law, the school district responsible for a student's special education is generally the district where the parent resides. The ALJ concluded, based on overwhelming evidence, that Parent resided in Richmond throughout the entire period at issue, not in Berkeley.

The evidence against Parent's claim of Berkeley residency was extensive. Police reports, juvenile court documents, arrest records, and statements made by both Parent and Student to the District's psychologist all listed the Richmond address as their home. Parent had voted in Contra Costa County elections for over a decade, held a driver's license registered to Richmond, used the Richmond address for her business, maintained a landline there as her primary contact number, and qualified the Richmond property for a homeowner's property tax exemption — which can only be claimed on a primary residence. The ALJ found Parent's testimony at the hearing to be inconsistent, evasive, and ultimately not credible.

Because Parent did not reside within District's boundaries, District had no legal duty to provide Student a FAPE. During the periods Student was in juvenile detention, the county office of education where the detention center was located bore that responsibility — not District. During periods when Student was placed in residential treatment centers, the school districts where those centers were located were responsible. At all other times, the responsible district was the one covering Parent's actual address in Richmond.

On the records request issue, the ALJ found that District responded promptly to both of Parent's written requests. While attendance records and assessment protocols were not included, these were characterized as minor oversights — not a meaningful denial of Parent's rights. Importantly, even if those omissions had been errors, they would not have risen to the level of a FAPE denial because they did not impede Parent's ability to participate in IEP decision-making.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. No compensatory education, tuition reimbursement, or other remedies were awarded.
3. District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. The district where your child attends school is not necessarily the district responsible for special education services. Under California law, responsibility for a student's FAPE follows the parent's actual residence — not the school the child attends. Enrolling a child in a school outside your home district using a relative's address does not create a legal obligation for that district to provide special education.

2. Residency claims must be backed by consistent, credible evidence. The ALJ in this case carefully reviewed years of documents — voter registration, tax records, police reports, court filings — and found they all pointed to one address. Statements made casually to police, doctors, or school staff can become powerful evidence in a due process hearing, even if you later try to explain them away.

3. When a student is in juvenile detention or a residential treatment center, a different agency may be responsible for their education. County offices of education are responsible for students in juvenile detention centers, and the school district where a residential treatment center is located is responsible for students placed there. Parents should know which agency to contact for special education services in those situations.

4. Failing to include documents in an educational records response is not automatically a FAPE violation. Missing records (like attendance logs or test protocols) may be a minor procedural error, but courts will only find a FAPE denial if the missing records actually prevented the parent from participating meaningfully in the IEP process or harmed the student's education. If you notice records are missing, notify the district in writing promptly and give them a chance to correct it.