Student's School Threat Snapchats Were a Manifestation of Her Tourette, ADHD, and OCD

A 15-year-old student with Tourette syndrome, ADHD, OCD, and executive functioning deficits sent alarming Snapchat messages referencing a school shooting on the anniversary of Columbine. The district held a manifestation determination meeting and concluded her conduct was not related to her disabilities, then recommended her for expulsion. The ALJ reversed the district's determination, finding the team failed to review all relevant information and that the student's conduct was directly caused by her disabilities.

What Happened

A 15-year-old ninth-grade girl at Valencia High School had been receiving special education services under the category of Other Health Impairment due to Tourette syndrome, ADHD, OCD, and generalized anxiety disorder. These conditions caused her significant challenges with impulse control, disinhibition, compulsive behaviors, and executive functioning — meaning she frequently acted without thinking through consequences. Her IEP included a self-regulation counseling goal specifically designed to teach her to "stop, pause, and think" before acting. Throughout the school year she had accumulated at least 10 discipline infractions related to these disability symptoms.

On the evening of April 20, 2017 — the anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting — the student sent several Snapchat messages to about six friends that included images of guns and text telling them not to come to school the next day. The messages alarmed recipients, who contacted police. Police searched her phone and room and found no evidence of any real threat or criminal planning. The student consistently said the snaps were a joke. The district suspended her, held a manifestation determination meeting, concluded her conduct was not related to her disabilities, and recommended her for expulsion. Parent disagreed and filed for an expedited due process hearing.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to review all relevant information before the meeting. Only two team members — the school psychologist and the assistant principal — reviewed any documents beforehand. The remaining team members reviewed nothing at all: not the student's IEP, not her psychoeducational assessment, not her disciplinary record, not her own written statement, and not the witness statements from other students. None of these materials were even made available at the meeting itself.
School psychologist did not review the student's own written statement. The student had written a statement explaining that her OCD caused her to keep sending snaps, that she did not foresee causing trouble, and that she often joked this way with friends. The psychologist never read it — yet formed a definitive opinion that her conduct was planned and purposeful.
No one interviewed the student about the details of the incident. Neither the principal, assistant principal, nor school psychologist asked the student how long it took to create the snaps, when she sent them, or what she was thinking at the time. The team then assumed the conduct required significant planning — an assumption not supported by any actual inquiry.
The school psychologist arrived at the meeting with a pre-typed draft conclusion. Before any discussion took place, Mr. Trivitt prepared a document stating the team had already agreed the conduct was not a manifestation of the student's disability. This structure effectively predetermined the outcome before the team reviewed anything.
The team dismissed the treating psychiatrist's opinion without a complete record. The student's psychiatrist of four years submitted a letter explaining in clinical detail why the student's conduct was caused by her ADHD, Tourette, OCD, and executive functioning deficits. The team disagreed with her conclusions — but did so while working from an incomplete review of the student's history and behavior.
The conduct was actually a manifestation of her disabilities. The ALJ found that the student's impulse to act on the "joke" idea, her compulsion to keep sending snaps until it felt complete, her use of profanity (a documented Tourette tic), her complete failure to foresee consequences, and her lack of emotional connection to the harm caused were all consistent with her documented disability symptoms. Her cumulative history showed a consistent pattern of impulsive, unfiltered behavior — and this incident fit squarely within that pattern.

What Was Ordered

The district's manifestation determination finding was reversed. The student's conduct on April 20, 2017, was found to be caused by, or to have a direct and substantial relationship to, her disabilities.
The district was ordered to immediately reinstate the student's enrollment and services at Valencia High School under her last agreed-upon IEP.
Within 45 days, the district must conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and convene an IEP meeting to discuss results and develop or update a behavioral intervention plan (BIP).
Within 45 days, the district must expunge all references to the expulsion from the student's cumulative school records.

Why This Matters for Parents

Every team member must actually review the relevant documents — not just hear a summary. The law requires the manifestation determination team to review all relevant information. One person's oral summary to the group is not enough. If key materials like your child's IEP, assessment, discipline history, and your child's own statement are not made available to everyone at the meeting, the process is legally defective and you should object on the record.
Your child's written statement is "relevant information" that must be reviewed. If your child wrote or gave a statement about the incident, that document must be part of the team's review. If the school psychologist or any team member has not read it, say so during the meeting and demand it be considered before any conclusions are reached.
Watch for pre-typed or pre-filled manifestation determination forms. If the district comes to the meeting with a document that already states a conclusion, that is a red flag that the outcome may have been predetermined. The manifestation determination must be a genuine, informed team discussion — not a formality.
Bring your child's treating doctor or psychiatrist's opinion in writing. In this case, the treating psychiatrist's letter was critically important evidence. Even though the district initially dismissed it, the ALJ gave it significant weight. Get a written clinical opinion connecting your child's specific disability symptoms to the specific conduct at issue, and submit it at the meeting.
Expulsion records can be expunged when a manifestation is proven. Parents sometimes accept a "suspended expulsion" deal without realizing that if the conduct was a manifestation of the child's disability, the expulsion recommendation was improper from the start. If you later prove manifestation, you may be entitled to have all expulsion records removed from your child's file — which can protect them from long-term consequences in school enrollment, college applications, and more.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to review all relevant information before the meeting. Only two team members — the school psychologist and the assistant principal — reviewed any documents beforehand. The remaining team members reviewed nothing at all: not the student's IEP, not her psychoeducational assessment, not her disciplinary record, not her own written statement, and not the witness statements from other students. None of these materials were even made available at the meeting itself.
School psychologist did not review the student's own written statement. The student had written a statement explaining that her OCD caused her to keep sending snaps, that she did not foresee causing trouble, and that she often joked this way with friends. The psychologist never read it — yet formed a definitive opinion that her conduct was planned and purposeful.
No one interviewed the student about the details of the incident. Neither the principal, assistant principal, nor school psychologist asked the student how long it took to create the snaps, when she sent them, or what she was thinking at the time. The team then assumed the conduct required significant planning — an assumption not supported by any actual inquiry.
The school psychologist arrived at the meeting with a pre-typed draft conclusion. Before any discussion took place, Mr. Trivitt prepared a document stating the team had already agreed the conduct was not a manifestation of the student's disability. This structure effectively predetermined the outcome before the team reviewed anything.
The team dismissed the treating psychiatrist's opinion without a complete record. The student's psychiatrist of four years submitted a letter explaining in clinical detail why the student's conduct was caused by her ADHD, Tourette, OCD, and executive functioning deficits. The team disagreed with her conclusions — but did so while working from an incomplete review of the student's history and behavior.
The conduct was actually a manifestation of her disabilities. The ALJ found that the student's impulse to act on the "joke" idea, her compulsion to keep sending snaps until it felt complete, her use of profanity (a documented Tourette tic), her complete failure to foresee consequences, and her lack of emotional connection to the harm caused were all consistent with her documented disability symptoms. Her cumulative history showed a consistent pattern of impulsive, unfiltered behavior — and this incident fit squarely within that pattern.

What Was Ordered

The district's manifestation determination finding was reversed. The student's conduct on April 20, 2017, was found to be caused by, or to have a direct and substantial relationship to, her disabilities.
The district was ordered to immediately reinstate the student's enrollment and services at Valencia High School under her last agreed-upon IEP.
Within 45 days, the district must conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and convene an IEP meeting to discuss results and develop or update a behavioral intervention plan (BIP).
Within 45 days, the district must expunge all references to the expulsion from the student's cumulative school records.

Why This Matters for Parents

Every team member must actually review the relevant documents — not just hear a summary. The law requires the manifestation determination team to review all relevant information. One person's oral summary to the group is not enough. If key materials like your child's IEP, assessment, discipline history, and your child's own statement are not made available to everyone at the meeting, the process is legally defective and you should object on the record.
Your child's written statement is "relevant information" that must be reviewed. If your child wrote or gave a statement about the incident, that document must be part of the team's review. If the school psychologist or any team member has not read it, say so during the meeting and demand it be considered before any conclusions are reached.
Watch for pre-typed or pre-filled manifestation determination forms. If the district comes to the meeting with a document that already states a conclusion, that is a red flag that the outcome may have been predetermined. The manifestation determination must be a genuine, informed team discussion — not a formality.
Bring your child's treating doctor or psychiatrist's opinion in writing. In this case, the treating psychiatrist's letter was critically important evidence. Even though the district initially dismissed it, the ALJ gave it significant weight. Get a written clinical opinion connecting your child's specific disability symptoms to the specific conduct at issue, and submit it at the meeting.
Expulsion records can be expunged when a manifestation is proven. Parents sometimes accept a "suspended expulsion" deal without realizing that if the conduct was a manifestation of the child's disability, the expulsion recommendation was improper from the start. If you later prove manifestation, you may be entitled to have all expulsion records removed from your child's file — which can protect them from long-term consequences in school enrollment, college applications, and more.