District Prevails After Student's Chronic Absences Undermine FAPE Claims at Malibu High School

What Happened

Student was a high school student eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance, with a significant history of depression, anxiety, and school avoidance. After years of struggling in Santa Monica-Malibu schools — including a period of home instruction and an alternative therapeutic program — Student was placed at a residential treatment center in Chicago for eighth and ninth grade. By December 2015, the full IEP team, including Parent, agreed Student had made enough progress to return home and enroll in the district's Structured Therapeutic Education Program (STEP) at Malibu High School, a smaller campus with embedded counseling and academic supports designed specifically for students with internalizing behaviors like depression and anxiety.

Once back at Malibu High School, Student struggled significantly. He was absent for nearly 30 percent of school days in both the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 school years, failed most of his classes, and cycled back into anxiety and depression. Parent argued the district failed to provide appropriate goals, counseling services, academic supports, and placement across four IEPs (December 2015, January 2016, November 2016, and June 2017). When the district declined to explore a different school placement at the November 2016 IEP, Parent unilaterally enrolled Student in a private school called Arete without the district's agreement, then sought tuition reimbursement. At the June 2017 IEP meeting, the district offered placement at a nonpublic school (the Help Group) that could implement Student's IEP. Parent refused and continued pursuing due process.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district prevailed on every issue. The evidence showed the district consistently offered appropriate goals tied to Student's identified needs, progressively increased academic support as Student struggled, and provided both school-based and intensive counseling services on site multiple days per week. District staff communicated with Parent almost daily, offered to conduct additional assessments for school refusal and in-home behavioral support, and offered parent counseling — all of which Parent either declined or did not fully utilize.

The ALJ found that Student's poor performance was caused primarily by chronic absenteeism and failure to complete work at home, not by inadequate district services. Parent's account of Student's daily after-school routine — which included no scheduled homework time — and Parent's pattern of downplaying the effect of absences on Student's grades undermined the claim that the district was responsible for Student's academic failure. On the predetermination claim, the ALJ found that the district actively listened to Parent and Arete staff at the June 2017 meeting and adjusted its nonpublic school recommendation based on that input. Because the district had made a valid offer of FAPE that Parent rejected, no tuition reimbursement for Arete was owed.

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District prevailed on all issues presented.
3. No tuition reimbursement for the private school placement at Arete was awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Chronic absenteeism can sink a FAPE claim even when the district's program has real gaps. The ALJ placed significant weight on the fact that Student missed nearly 30 percent of school days. When attendance problems are this severe, it becomes very difficult to prove that poor academic outcomes were caused by the district rather than the absences. If your child has attendance challenges, documenting that the district failed to address the cause of the absences — not just the academic consequences — is critical.

2. A district does not have to agree to your preferred placement, but it must offer a genuine alternative. Parent wanted Student to stay at Arete. The district refused because Arete lacked qualified staff to implement the IEP. The district's offer of a nonpublic school that could implement the IEP was found legally sufficient. Before pursuing a unilateral private placement, parents should carefully evaluate whether the private school can actually deliver the services in the IEP — if it cannot, reimbursement is unlikely.

3. Declining district-offered assessments can hurt your case. The district offered to conduct a school refusal assessment and an intensive in-home support services assessment. Parent signed the assessment plan but then enrolled Student privately before the assessments could be completed. The ALJ noted this. If you believe more services are needed, allowing the district to complete its assessments creates a record — and refusing them can be used against you later.

4. Parent participation must be genuine on both sides. The district repeatedly invited Parent to call staff when Student refused to get out of the car so they could help. Parent did not take them up on this. The ALJ found that Parent's resistance to the district's structured supports — not the district's failure to provide them — contributed to Student's struggles. Engaging with every support the district offers, even imperfect ones, strengthens your position if you later need to argue those supports were insufficient.