District Wins: Parent's IEE Requests Denied After Student Moved and Assessments Found Adequate

What Happened

Student was a 10-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability while attending Bellflower Unified School District. He had a significant history of severe behavioral challenges at school, including physical aggression toward staff and peers, elopement, use of profanity, and non-compliance — behaviors that multiple teachers and a behavior specialist described as preventing him from accessing his education in a general education setting. Outside of school, however, Student displayed few or none of these behaviors, and his private therapist had closed his file in March 2017 after concluding he had met his social skills goals.

As part of Student's triennial evaluation in fall 2017, Bellflower conducted a psycho-educational assessment and a speech and language assessment. The IEP team proposed changing Student's eligibility categories to other health impairment (for ADHD) and emotional disturbance, and recommended placement in a non-public school. Parent disagreed with the eligibility findings and the proposed placement, and on November 28, 2017, formally requested independent evaluations at public expense. Just one week later, on December 5, 2017, Student moved out of Bellflower's boundaries and enrolled in ABC Unified School District. Bellflower sent a written denial of the IEE requests on December 12, 2017 — after Student had already disenrolled. Parent filed for due process more than six months later, arguing that Bellflower should have either funded the independent evaluations or filed for due process to defend its assessments, and that the assessments themselves were inadequate.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of Bellflower on every issue. On the question of whether Bellflower was required to file for due process to defend its assessments, the ALJ found that a school district's legal obligations — including the duty to file for due process — are tied to a student living and being enrolled within its boundaries. When Student moved and disenrolled just seven calendar days (five school days) after requesting the independent evaluations, Bellflower ceased to be his local education agency, and its legal obligations ended at that point. The ALJ found that seven days was not an "unnecessary delay" under the law, and that requiring a former district to continue litigating on behalf of a student it no longer served would be contrary to the purpose of special education law.

On the adequacy of the assessments, the ALJ found that both the psycho-educational and speech and language evaluations were appropriate and comprehensive. The school psychologist used multiple standardized tests, observed Student across many settings and days, interviewed teachers and Parent, and reviewed prior records. The speech and language pathologist similarly used multiple valid tools, observed Student on four separate days, and attempted multiple times to contact Parent for input — attempts Parent did not respond to. Student's legal team argued that more tests should have been given, but presented no expert evidence to support that claim. The ALJ emphasized that argument from counsel alone is not evidence, and that Student bore the burden of proof and did not meet it.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. Bellflower was found to be the prevailing party on all issues.
3. No independent evaluations, compensatory services, or other remedies were awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Moving to a new district can eliminate your legal leverage against your old district. If you disagree with your current district's assessments, request independent evaluations before moving — and ideally resolve the dispute before disenrolling. Once your child enrolls in a new district, your old district's legal obligations may end entirely, including any duty to fund IEEs or file for due process.

2. Parent input matters — return your assessors' calls. In this case, the speech and language pathologist tried twice to reach Parent for input during the assessment. Because Parent did not respond, the assessor was unable to conduct a home observation or parent interview. The ALJ held this against Parent when evaluating the assessment's adequacy. Always respond to requests for input during an assessment, even if you disagree with the process.

3. You need expert evidence to challenge an assessment, not just attorney arguments. The ALJ repeatedly noted that Parent's attorney argued the assessments were insufficient, but presented no independent expert to support those claims. If you believe a district's evaluation was inadequate, an independent expert witness who can explain specifically what was missing or done incorrectly is critical — the parent bears the burden of proof.

4. A child's behavior at home versus school can still support an emotional disturbance eligibility. Parent argued that Student couldn't qualify as emotionally disturbed because his severe behaviors only appeared at school, not at home. The ALJ rejected this argument, finding that the discrepancy itself was consistent with the school environment's demands. Parents should understand that eligibility categories are based on educational impact, not medical diagnoses or behaviors outside of school.