District's Flawed Manifestation Determination Reversed: Student Reinstated After Expulsion

An 11-year-old student with ADHD and Emotional Disturbance was expelled after punching another student, but the school's manifestation determination team failed to properly consider his disabilities or all relevant facts from that day. The ALJ found the team's process fatally flawed — dominated by a psychologist who dismissed Emotional Disturbance as irrelevant — and reversed the expulsion. The district was ordered to reinstate the student to his original placement.

What Happened

A fifth-grade student at Rosamond Elementary School, 11 years old and eligible for special education under Other Health Impairment (ADHD) and Emotional Disturbance, had a long and serious behavioral history across multiple school districts. After transferring to Southern Kern Unified, the district initially failed to hold a timely IEP meeting and resorted to punishment — suspensions, detentions, campus clean-up — rather than addressing his behavioral needs through his IEP. A prior due process complaint resulted in a settlement requiring the district to conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA), develop a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), add counseling services, and provide 60 hours of behavioral support from a non-public agency. Despite these agreements, the student's behavior continued to escalate, and the district had already held one manifestation determination meeting in February 2017 — where the team concluded his behavior was a manifestation of his disability.

On April 21, 2017 — the day the student returned from a suspension for a prior punch — a series of stressful events unfolded: he was denied "Fun Friday" privileges by his resource teacher, had a physical confrontation with a paraeducator over a basketball, was refused entry to a football game at lunch, and was observed in a state of high agitation by his counselor. That afternoon, he punched another student in the head near the school gate. The district moved to expel him and convened a second manifestation determination meeting on May 5, 2017. This time, the team — led heavily by the school psychologist — concluded the punch was not related to his disabilities and allowed the expulsion to proceed. The parent filed an expedited due process hearing challenging that determination.

What the District Did Wrong

Team failed to consider Emotional Disturbance as a disability. The school psychologist who led the meeting personally believed Emotional Disturbance is not a real disability, even though he had authored the evaluation finding the student eligible under that category. He told the team they only needed to consider ADHD, effectively eliminating half the student's disability profile from the analysis. The ALJ found this usurped the team's responsibility and rendered the entire determination unreliable.
Other team members had no understanding of Emotional Disturbance and simply deferred to the psychologist. The resource teacher believed the student had no disability at all. The counselor felt unqualified to evaluate disability categories. The vice principal was underprepared due to the principal's last-minute withdrawal. Rather than exercising independent judgment, team members rubber-stamped the psychologist's conclusions.
The team did not share critical information about the day of the incident. The resource teacher knew she had barred the student from Fun Friday that morning and was aware of his conflict with a paraeducator over a basketball — but did not tell the team. The counselor knew she had encountered the student in a state of "very agitated" distress at lunch — but did not tell the team. These facts, taken together, painted a picture of a child whose emotional state was escalating throughout the day, which was directly relevant to whether the punch was an impulsive or emotionally disturbed act.
The team relied on incomplete and contradictory witness statements without inviting the key witness. The only adult who saw the punch, teacher Ms. Geiger, wrote two statements that differed in a material way: one described a "commotion" before the punch (suggesting possible prior interaction between the students), and the other did not. No team member noticed or discussed this difference. Ms. Geiger was available to attend the meeting but was never invited.
The team ignored evidence of potential provocation. The student told the principal he had been shoved before he punched. The principal's own written report noted this claim. The psychologist acknowledged that provocation could have changed his analysis — yet this information was never raised or discussed during the meeting.
The district failed to implement the student's IEP. The student's IEP required counseling and resource support services. The student missed more than half his resource sessions and received only a fraction of required counseling. Rather than convening the IEP team to address his refusal of services, the district allowed the situation to continue. The ALJ found this failure directly contributed to the April 21 incident, since those services were specifically designed to build the self-regulation and peer-interaction skills the student lacked.

What Was Ordered

The district's manifestation determination — that the April 21, 2017 incident was unrelated to the student's disability and not caused by a failure to implement his IEP — was reversed.
The student was ordered reinstated to his placement at Rosamond Elementary School, or to the district general education school he would otherwise attend if he had aged out of Rosamond Elementary.

Why This Matters for Parents

A manifestation determination team must consider ALL of your child's disabilities — not just the ones the school finds convenient. If your child qualifies under multiple eligibility categories (such as both ADHD and Emotional Disturbance), the team is legally required to analyze whether the behavior is related to any of those disabilities. A team member cannot unilaterally decide one category doesn't count.
The team must share all relevant information — including what staff personally witnessed that day. School staff who attend a manifestation determination meeting have a duty to bring everything they know about the student's state of mind and circumstances on the day of the incident. If a teacher, counselor, or administrator withholds relevant facts, the whole determination can be thrown out.
Witness statements must be scrutinized, not just read aloud. If there are inconsistencies between written accounts of an incident — especially about whether there was a "commotion" or prior interaction before a punch — those inconsistencies matter. Parents should request all written statements before the meeting and ask the team to discuss any differences.
A district cannot let a student "refuse" IEP services without taking action. If your child is skipping counseling sessions, refusing to attend resource classes, or otherwise not receiving what the IEP requires, the district's job is to convene the IEP team to problem-solve — not to quietly let services lapse. Failure to deliver IEP services can itself be grounds for reversing a manifestation determination.
You have the right to an expedited due process hearing if you disagree with a manifestation determination. If the district concludes your child's behavior was not related to their disability and moves toward expulsion, you can file a hearing request and the hearing must happen within 20 school days. You do not have to accept the district's conclusion. As this case shows, a flawed process — even one led by credentialed professionals — can be reversed.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Team failed to consider Emotional Disturbance as a disability. The school psychologist who led the meeting personally believed Emotional Disturbance is not a real disability, even though he had authored the evaluation finding the student eligible under that category. He told the team they only needed to consider ADHD, effectively eliminating half the student's disability profile from the analysis. The ALJ found this usurped the team's responsibility and rendered the entire determination unreliable.
Other team members had no understanding of Emotional Disturbance and simply deferred to the psychologist. The resource teacher believed the student had no disability at all. The counselor felt unqualified to evaluate disability categories. The vice principal was underprepared due to the principal's last-minute withdrawal. Rather than exercising independent judgment, team members rubber-stamped the psychologist's conclusions.
The team did not share critical information about the day of the incident. The resource teacher knew she had barred the student from Fun Friday that morning and was aware of his conflict with a paraeducator over a basketball — but did not tell the team. The counselor knew she had encountered the student in a state of "very agitated" distress at lunch — but did not tell the team. These facts, taken together, painted a picture of a child whose emotional state was escalating throughout the day, which was directly relevant to whether the punch was an impulsive or emotionally disturbed act.
The team relied on incomplete and contradictory witness statements without inviting the key witness. The only adult who saw the punch, teacher Ms. Geiger, wrote two statements that differed in a material way: one described a "commotion" before the punch (suggesting possible prior interaction between the students), and the other did not. No team member noticed or discussed this difference. Ms. Geiger was available to attend the meeting but was never invited.
The team ignored evidence of potential provocation. The student told the principal he had been shoved before he punched. The principal's own written report noted this claim. The psychologist acknowledged that provocation could have changed his analysis — yet this information was never raised or discussed during the meeting.
The district failed to implement the student's IEP. The student's IEP required counseling and resource support services. The student missed more than half his resource sessions and received only a fraction of required counseling. Rather than convening the IEP team to address his refusal of services, the district allowed the situation to continue. The ALJ found this failure directly contributed to the April 21 incident, since those services were specifically designed to build the self-regulation and peer-interaction skills the student lacked.

What Was Ordered

The district's manifestation determination — that the April 21, 2017 incident was unrelated to the student's disability and not caused by a failure to implement his IEP — was reversed.
The student was ordered reinstated to his placement at Rosamond Elementary School, or to the district general education school he would otherwise attend if he had aged out of Rosamond Elementary.

Why This Matters for Parents

A manifestation determination team must consider ALL of your child's disabilities — not just the ones the school finds convenient. If your child qualifies under multiple eligibility categories (such as both ADHD and Emotional Disturbance), the team is legally required to analyze whether the behavior is related to any of those disabilities. A team member cannot unilaterally decide one category doesn't count.
The team must share all relevant information — including what staff personally witnessed that day. School staff who attend a manifestation determination meeting have a duty to bring everything they know about the student's state of mind and circumstances on the day of the incident. If a teacher, counselor, or administrator withholds relevant facts, the whole determination can be thrown out.
Witness statements must be scrutinized, not just read aloud. If there are inconsistencies between written accounts of an incident — especially about whether there was a "commotion" or prior interaction before a punch — those inconsistencies matter. Parents should request all written statements before the meeting and ask the team to discuss any differences.
A district cannot let a student "refuse" IEP services without taking action. If your child is skipping counseling sessions, refusing to attend resource classes, or otherwise not receiving what the IEP requires, the district's job is to convene the IEP team to problem-solve — not to quietly let services lapse. Failure to deliver IEP services can itself be grounds for reversing a manifestation determination.
You have the right to an expedited due process hearing if you disagree with a manifestation determination. If the district concludes your child's behavior was not related to their disability and moves toward expulsion, you can file a hearing request and the hearing must happen within 20 school days. You do not have to accept the district's conclusion. As this case shows, a flawed process — even one led by credentialed professionals — can be reversed.