District Wins Manifestation Determination: Drug Possession Found Not Related to Disability

A 14-year-old student with intellectual disability and ADHD was found with controlled substances on campus and recommended for expulsion. His parents challenged the district's manifestation determination, arguing the conduct was related to his disability or caused by the district's failure to implement his IEP. The ALJ found in favor of the district on all issues, affirming that the student's planned drug possession was not a manifestation of his disabilities.

What Happened

A 14-year-old ninth grader at Fillmore High School was eligible for special education under the category of intellectual disability, and also had a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He had a long history of impulsive outbursts, aggression, and defiance, and had been through four prior manifestation determination meetings in the year before this incident — all concluding his conduct was not a manifestation of his disability. He had an active behavior intervention plan focused on coping strategies for impulsive outbursts, including checking in with a preferred adult, a point reward system, and a behavior journal. He refused to participate in the point system and journal but regularly used the preferred-adult check-in, and his outbursts were reportedly decreasing.

On November 28, 2017, school staff discovered the student was in possession of a marijuana vapor pen, marijuana concentrate packets, and 11 Xanax pills — packaged and in quantities consistent with intent to sell. He had also been cited weeks earlier off campus for drug possession with intent to sell. The district suspended him for five days and recommended expulsion. A manifestation determination meeting was held on December 4, 2017, with the student's mother (assisted by a Spanish interpreter), school psychologist, therapist, case manager, and assistant principal in attendance. The team concluded the conduct was planned and premeditated — not impulsive — and was not caused by his disability or by any failure to implement his IEP. The parents filed for an expedited due process hearing, challenging the notice provided, the quality of interpretation, and the team's substantive conclusion.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. Key findings included:

Proper notice was given. The district's clerk called the mother in Spanish, read the exact Spanish term for "manifestation determination meeting," confirmed her attendance, and mailed a bilingual written notice with the full parents' rights document two days after the incident. The mother had also attended four prior manifestation determination meetings and was well familiar with their purpose. Her claim that she received only a vague phone call was not persuasive.
Mother was aware Student could attend. Prior notices had stated parents could bring anyone with knowledge of the student. The mother knew the student had been asked to prior meetings and chose not to attend. No evidence was offered that the student would have attended or provided any different information if specifically invited.
The team meaningfully considered whether the conduct was related to the disability. The school psychologist prepared a detailed psychological report, presented it section by section at the meeting, and invited questions throughout. The team reviewed the student's IEP, disability characteristics, behavior history, medication history, and intensive therapy services. The student's disabilities were associated with impulsive outbursts — not planned, premeditated conduct. His drug possession required advance planning: he purchased a vaporizer pen the day before, brought it to school, then bought additional drugs on campus and concealed them in his clothing and socks.
The self-medication argument failed. The parents argued the student was using marijuana and Xanax to self-medicate for depression and anxiety. The ALJ found this unpersuasive: the student had never been diagnosed with or treated for depression or anxiety, no one who knew him suspected drug use, his own therapist (who had a close relationship with him) did not believe he was self-medicating, and the mother admitted she did not know what "self-medication" meant. The physician's assistant who raised the possibility had never thought the student's symptoms serious enough to diagnose or medicate.
The IEP was being implemented. The student's refusal to participate in the point reward system and behavior journal did not mean the district failed to implement those strategies — the district tried. More importantly, the student was using another identified strategy (preferred-adult check-ins), his outbursts were declining, and the plan was working. The mother was regularly updated through a Spanish-speaking liaison and through the student's therapist. The team — including the mother — agreed the IEP was being implemented.
Interpretation was adequate. The Spanish interpreter translated throughout the meeting. The mother was repeatedly invited to ask questions or comment and repeatedly declined. Her vague claim that "not everything was translated" was not supported by any specifics and was not persuasive.

What Was Ordered

The parent's request for relief was denied in full.
The December 4, 2017 manifestation determination — finding that the student's drug possession was not a manifestation of his disabilities — was affirmed.
The district was permitted to proceed with expulsion proceedings.

Why This Matters for Parents

Planned conduct is harder to connect to disability than impulsive conduct. Manifestation determinations turn heavily on whether the behavior was impulsive or deliberate. If your child's disability causes impulsive outbursts, that may not protect them when the conduct at issue involved planning, purchasing, concealing, and lying. Document your child's disability-related behaviors carefully so any genuine connection to specific conduct is clear in the record.
A diagnosis alone is not enough — you need documentation of treatment. The parents argued the student was self-medicating for depression and anxiety, but no professional had formally diagnosed or treated him for those conditions. If your child has mental health symptoms that affect their behavior, get a formal diagnosis and treatment documented before a crisis occurs — not for the first time at a hearing.
Prior manifestation meetings create a record that works against you if the pattern repeats. This student had been through four prior manifestation determinations in one year, all finding no manifestation. That pattern reinforced the district's position. If your child is in a cycle of suspensions and manifestation meetings, push hard at each IEP meeting to address the root causes and update the behavior plan proactively.
A behavior plan that partially works is not a failed plan. Even though the student refused two of the plan's strategies, the ALJ found the plan was being implemented because another strategy was working. If you believe your child's behavior plan is inadequate, request an IEP meeting to formally revise it — don't wait until a disciplinary incident to raise implementation concerns for the first time.
Make sure your child's IEP meeting participation rights are clearly documented. The mother's claim that she wasn't told the student could attend was rejected because prior notices contained that language and she had attended four prior meetings. Read every notice carefully, ask questions before the meeting, and if you want your child present, confirm that in writing ahead of time so there is no dispute later.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. Key findings included:

Proper notice was given. The district's clerk called the mother in Spanish, read the exact Spanish term for "manifestation determination meeting," confirmed her attendance, and mailed a bilingual written notice with the full parents' rights document two days after the incident. The mother had also attended four prior manifestation determination meetings and was well familiar with their purpose. Her claim that she received only a vague phone call was not persuasive.
Mother was aware Student could attend. Prior notices had stated parents could bring anyone with knowledge of the student. The mother knew the student had been asked to prior meetings and chose not to attend. No evidence was offered that the student would have attended or provided any different information if specifically invited.
The team meaningfully considered whether the conduct was related to the disability. The school psychologist prepared a detailed psychological report, presented it section by section at the meeting, and invited questions throughout. The team reviewed the student's IEP, disability characteristics, behavior history, medication history, and intensive therapy services. The student's disabilities were associated with impulsive outbursts — not planned, premeditated conduct. His drug possession required advance planning: he purchased a vaporizer pen the day before, brought it to school, then bought additional drugs on campus and concealed them in his clothing and socks.
The self-medication argument failed. The parents argued the student was using marijuana and Xanax to self-medicate for depression and anxiety. The ALJ found this unpersuasive: the student had never been diagnosed with or treated for depression or anxiety, no one who knew him suspected drug use, his own therapist (who had a close relationship with him) did not believe he was self-medicating, and the mother admitted she did not know what "self-medication" meant. The physician's assistant who raised the possibility had never thought the student's symptoms serious enough to diagnose or medicate.
The IEP was being implemented. The student's refusal to participate in the point reward system and behavior journal did not mean the district failed to implement those strategies — the district tried. More importantly, the student was using another identified strategy (preferred-adult check-ins), his outbursts were declining, and the plan was working. The mother was regularly updated through a Spanish-speaking liaison and through the student's therapist. The team — including the mother — agreed the IEP was being implemented.
Interpretation was adequate. The Spanish interpreter translated throughout the meeting. The mother was repeatedly invited to ask questions or comment and repeatedly declined. Her vague claim that "not everything was translated" was not supported by any specifics and was not persuasive.

What Was Ordered

The parent's request for relief was denied in full.
The December 4, 2017 manifestation determination — finding that the student's drug possession was not a manifestation of his disabilities — was affirmed.
The district was permitted to proceed with expulsion proceedings.

Why This Matters for Parents

Planned conduct is harder to connect to disability than impulsive conduct. Manifestation determinations turn heavily on whether the behavior was impulsive or deliberate. If your child's disability causes impulsive outbursts, that may not protect them when the conduct at issue involved planning, purchasing, concealing, and lying. Document your child's disability-related behaviors carefully so any genuine connection to specific conduct is clear in the record.
A diagnosis alone is not enough — you need documentation of treatment. The parents argued the student was self-medicating for depression and anxiety, but no professional had formally diagnosed or treated him for those conditions. If your child has mental health symptoms that affect their behavior, get a formal diagnosis and treatment documented before a crisis occurs — not for the first time at a hearing.
Prior manifestation meetings create a record that works against you if the pattern repeats. This student had been through four prior manifestation determinations in one year, all finding no manifestation. That pattern reinforced the district's position. If your child is in a cycle of suspensions and manifestation meetings, push hard at each IEP meeting to address the root causes and update the behavior plan proactively.
A behavior plan that partially works is not a failed plan. Even though the student refused two of the plan's strategies, the ALJ found the plan was being implemented because another strategy was working. If you believe your child's behavior plan is inadequate, request an IEP meeting to formally revise it — don't wait until a disciplinary incident to raise implementation concerns for the first time.
Make sure your child's IEP meeting participation rights are clearly documented. The mother's claim that she wasn't told the student could attend was rejected because prior notices contained that language and she had attended four prior meetings. Read every notice carefully, ask questions before the meeting, and if you want your child present, confirm that in writing ahead of time so there is no dispute later.