Alta Loma Delayed IEE Filing 84 Days, Denying Parent Key Visual Processing Info

A parent requested an independent visual processing evaluation for her child, but Alta Loma School District took 84 days to file for due process after a dispute arose over the evaluator's rate — withholding critical cost information from the parent the entire time. On remand from federal court, ALJ Sabrina Kong found this procedural delay constituted a substantive FAPE denial because it significantly impeded the parent's participation in the IEP process. The student had already received the independent evaluation he originally requested, so no additional compensatory remedy was awarded, but the district was ordered to change its practices.

What Happened

The student had never been evaluated for visual processing deficits. In August 2017, the parent requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) for visual processing, among other areas. Alta Loma agreed and provided a list of approved independent evaluators and the SELPA's cost criteria. The parent selected Doug Stephey as the visual processing evaluator. Rather than contacting Mr. Stephey directly to verify his qualifications and rate — as the district had done for another evaluator, Dr. Morris — Alta Loma asked the parent to provide that information. When Mr. Stephey's rate of up to $2,400 came in far above the SELPA's $900 cost cap for visual processing, Alta Loma told the parent his rate didn't qualify, but never told her how much over the cap he was. Alta Loma then asked the parent to submit a written justification for approving an out-of-criteria evaluator, but the parent never provided one. Alta Loma did not file for due process until December 5, 2017 — 84 days after the dispute began.

A federal district court later reviewed the original OAH decision and found Alta Loma had committed a procedural violation through this 84-day "unnecessary delay." The court sent the case back to OAH on a limited remand: determine whether that delay caused a substantive FAPE denial and, if so, what remedy was appropriate. ALJ Kong found that the delay did constitute a substantive FAPE violation because it left the parent in the dark about her child's right to a visual processing evaluation and blocked meaningful participation in the IEP process during that critical period.

What the District Did Wrong

1. Contacted the parent instead of the evaluator directly. When the parent selected Mr. Stephey on September 12, 2017, Alta Loma should have reached out to him directly to verify his rates and qualifications — exactly what it did for the neuropsychological evaluator, Dr. Morris. Instead, it unnecessarily routed this through the parent, creating delay from the start.

2. Waited two weeks before even asking for evaluator information. Alta Loma did not request Mr. Stephey's credentials and rate until September 26, 2017 — two weeks after the parent identified him. This additional delay was found to be unreasonable.

3. Withheld the exact cost difference from the parent. Alta Loma knew Mr. Stephey's rate exceeded the SELPA cap by $1,500, but only told the parent his rate "didn't meet the criteria." It never told her the dollar amount of the difference. The federal court found this withholding of specific cost information was unacceptable and prevented the parent from meaningfully responding to or resolving the dispute.

4. Took 84 days to file for due process. From September 12 to December 5, 2017, Alta Loma sat on the dispute rather than promptly seeking adjudication. This delay left the parent and IEP team without the visual processing evaluation data needed to develop an appropriate educational program — an especially serious gap because the student had never been assessed in this area before.

5. The procedural violation caused a substantive FAPE denial. ALJ Kong concluded that, consistent with federal case law (I.R. v. LAUSD and Timothy O. v. Paso Robles USD), the 84-day delay substantially hindered the parent's ability to participate in IEP decision-making and deprived the student and IEP team of timely access to critical evaluation information.

What Was Ordered

Substantive FAPE denial confirmed. The ALJ formally found that Alta Loma's 84-day delay in filing for due process resulted in a substantive denial of FAPE, specifically by significantly impeding the parent's participation in the IEP process.
No additional compensatory education or new IEE ordered. Because the student had already received the independent visual processing evaluation — the only remedy the parent had requested at the original hearing — no further compensatory remedy was awarded on that basis.
District practice change ordered. Within 10 days of the decision, Alta Loma was required to circulate a written memorandum to its special education department directing staff to: (a) contact independent evaluators directly (not through parents) to obtain rate and qualification information; and (b) calculate the difference between the SELPA cost cap and the evaluator's rate, then inform parents of that specific dollar difference.
Staff training denied. The ALJ declined to order formal training, finding that Alta Loma already knew how to handle IEE requests correctly (it had done so for Dr. Morris) and the memorandum was sufficient.
Attorneys' fees denied at OAH. OAH has no authority to award attorneys' fees under IDEA; the parent was told to seek fees through a court of competent jurisdiction if desired.
Student was the prevailing party on the single remand issue.

Why This Matters for Parents

A procedural delay can become a substantive FAPE violation. Districts cannot sit on IEE disputes indefinitely. If a district's failure to act promptly blocks a parent from participating in IEP decisions or delays critical evaluation data, courts and OAH can find a full FAPE denial — even if the delay seems like a paperwork technicality.
Districts must give you specific numbers, not just a rejection. If a district tells you your chosen evaluator "doesn't meet cost criteria," you have the right to know exactly how much over the limit they are. Vague rejections that prevent you from problem-solving are not acceptable under IDEA.
Districts should contact your evaluator directly — not make you the middleman. When you select an independent evaluator, the district's obligation is to reach out to that evaluator itself to discuss rates and qualifications. If a district routes everything through you and then blames you for incomplete information, that process itself may be a procedural violation.
The remedy you request at the original hearing matters — ask for everything you need. In this case, because the parent only asked for an IEE at the original hearing, OAH could not award training or other remedies on remand that were never requested in the first place. When you file for due process, work with your advocate or attorney to identify and request all appropriate remedies upfront.
Even a partial win can change district practices. Although the student received no new compensatory services, the ALJ ordered Alta Loma to change how it handles all future IEE requests. A successful due process case — even one focused on procedure — can protect other families in the same district going forward.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Substantive FAPE denial confirmed. The ALJ formally found that Alta Loma's 84-day delay in filing for due process resulted in a substantive denial of FAPE, specifically by significantly impeding the parent's participation in the IEP process.
No additional compensatory education or new IEE ordered. Because the student had already received the independent visual processing evaluation — the only remedy the parent had requested at the original hearing — no further compensatory remedy was awarded on that basis.
District practice change ordered. Within 10 days of the decision, Alta Loma was required to circulate a written memorandum to its special education department directing staff to: (a) contact independent evaluators directly (not through parents) to obtain rate and qualification information; and (b) calculate the difference between the SELPA cost cap and the evaluator's rate, then inform parents of that specific dollar difference.
Staff training denied. The ALJ declined to order formal training, finding that Alta Loma already knew how to handle IEE requests correctly (it had done so for Dr. Morris) and the memorandum was sufficient.
Attorneys' fees denied at OAH. OAH has no authority to award attorneys' fees under IDEA; the parent was told to seek fees through a court of competent jurisdiction if desired.
Student was the prevailing party on the single remand issue.

Why This Matters for Parents

A procedural delay can become a substantive FAPE violation. Districts cannot sit on IEE disputes indefinitely. If a district's failure to act promptly blocks a parent from participating in IEP decisions or delays critical evaluation data, courts and OAH can find a full FAPE denial — even if the delay seems like a paperwork technicality.
Districts must give you specific numbers, not just a rejection. If a district tells you your chosen evaluator "doesn't meet cost criteria," you have the right to know exactly how much over the limit they are. Vague rejections that prevent you from problem-solving are not acceptable under IDEA.
Districts should contact your evaluator directly — not make you the middleman. When you select an independent evaluator, the district's obligation is to reach out to that evaluator itself to discuss rates and qualifications. If a district routes everything through you and then blames you for incomplete information, that process itself may be a procedural violation.
The remedy you request at the original hearing matters — ask for everything you need. In this case, because the parent only asked for an IEE at the original hearing, OAH could not award training or other remedies on remand that were never requested in the first place. When you file for due process, work with your advocate or attorney to identify and request all appropriate remedies upfront.
Even a partial win can change district practices. Although the student received no new compensatory services, the ALJ ordered Alta Loma to change how it handles all future IEE requests. A successful due process case — even one focused on procedure — can protect other families in the same district going forward.