Alhambra Wins Right to Implement IEP Without Consent for Student with Down Syndrome

Alhambra Unified School District filed for due process after a parent refused to consent to her daughter's 2018-2019 IEP. The student, a 14-year-old with Down syndrome and significant global developmental delays, had been recommended for a moderate-to-severe special day class at Mark Keppel High School. The ALJ found that Alhambra's IEPs offered a free appropriate public education and ordered that the district could implement the IEPs without parental consent.

What Happened

The student is a 14-year-old girl with Down syndrome who has had significant global developmental delays since birth. She is nonverbal and communicates through a combination of gestures, sign approximations, picture icons, and a voice output device (an iPad with Proloquo2Go software). Assessments placed her developmental functioning in the 18–24 month range, with some skills reaching the 2–4 year range. She had been educated in a moderate-to-severe special day class for several years and, upon transitioning to high school, Alhambra Unified recommended she continue in that setting at Mark Keppel High School with a one-to-one aide and related services including speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, assistive technology support, and adapted physical education.

The mother disagreed with the placement and refused to sign the IEPs developed across three meetings on February 5, March 22, and May 22, 2018. She believed her daughter's abilities were higher than the assessments showed, that the student would do better in a mild-to-moderate program, and that the district was blocking her from exploring alternative placements by refusing to provide a list of all available programs. She also objected to the use of picture icons in speech goals (preferring the student use only her AAC device and sign language), and she requested a behavior intervention plan and behavior aide. When the mother declined to consent, Alhambra filed for due process to obtain authorization to implement the IEPs.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of Alhambra on the central question — that the IEPs offered the student a FAPE — but did identify procedural errors the district made:

Procedural violation — unclear service offers: The IEPs contained conflicting entries for both speech-language therapy and adapted physical education services, with different dates, frequencies, and delivery methods listed. This was a procedural violation of the IDEA's requirement that service offers be clear and in writing.
Procedural violation did not rise to a FAPE denial: Despite the paperwork errors, the ALJ found no actual harm. The student's speech-language pathologist at Mark Keppel was already providing 240 minutes per month of individual therapy — the higher of the two figures listed — and was working on the student's IEP goals. All students in the recommended class received adapted physical education. Because the errors did not impede the student's education, deprive her of services, or block the mother's meaningful participation, they did not constitute a denial of FAPE.
Placement in moderate-to-severe program was appropriate: The ALJ found that the student's developmental functioning — pre-symbolic range, 18–24 month level — was well-matched to the moderate-to-severe special day class. All credible witnesses agreed the placement was appropriate. The mother's belief that the student was performing at a higher level was not supported by any expert testimony or documentary evidence.
Mother meaningfully participated: The ALJ found that the mother attended all three IEP meetings, raised concerns at each one, and received written responses to her concerns. The district's refusal to provide a list of all available programs or adopt her preferred communication approach did not amount to a denial of meaningful participation. A district does not have to agree with a parent's requests to satisfy its procedural obligations.
No behavior plan was required: School staff consistently observed the student as cooperative, well-behaved, and able to stay on task for up to 30 minutes with aide support. There was no evidence of problem behavior requiring a behavior intervention plan or a dedicated behavior aide.

What Was Ordered

Alhambra Unified School District was authorized to implement the February 5, March 22, and May 22, 2018 IEPs without the mother's written consent, provided the student remained enrolled in Alhambra for the 2018-2019 school year.
All of the parent's requested remedies — including a change of placement to a mild-to-moderate program, a behavior intervention plan, a behavior aide, and a list of alternative programs — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Paperwork errors alone rarely overturn an IEP. The district made real mistakes — conflicting service entries that even the speech therapist found confusing. But because the student was actually receiving the services, the ALJ did not penalize the district. Parents should document whether services described in the IEP are being delivered as written, because actual gaps in services carry much more legal weight than clerical errors.
You have a right to participate, but not to dictate. The law requires districts to listen to your concerns, respond to them, and keep you informed — not to follow your instructions. A district can reject your preferred placement, communication approach, or service model and still be in compliance, as long as its offer is backed by assessments and staff expertise.
Expert evidence matters enormously. The mother's disagreement with the placement was based on her personal observations and a private assessment from six years earlier that was never submitted into evidence. The district had multiple credentialed professionals testifying consistently. If you believe your child is performing at a higher level than assessments show, bring an independent evaluator to testify — opinions without documentation are very difficult to win on.
Districts are not required to show you all available programs. Alhambra refused to give the mother a list of placement options beyond the recommended one. The ALJ found this was permissible. However, districts are required to inform you about the continuum of placements. Ask for a prior written notice explaining why other placements were rejected — that creates a clearer record and may reveal gaps in the district's reasoning.
If a prior hearing already decided an issue, it binds future proceedings. An earlier OAH decision (Case No. 2017070426) had already ruled that the district's psychoeducational and speech-language assessments were appropriate. The ALJ in this case took official notice of that ruling and did not re-litigate the question. If you disagree with an OAH decision, you must appeal it to court — relitigating the same issue in a new due process hearing is generally not available.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of Alhambra on the central question — that the IEPs offered the student a FAPE — but did identify procedural errors the district made:

Procedural violation — unclear service offers: The IEPs contained conflicting entries for both speech-language therapy and adapted physical education services, with different dates, frequencies, and delivery methods listed. This was a procedural violation of the IDEA's requirement that service offers be clear and in writing.
Procedural violation did not rise to a FAPE denial: Despite the paperwork errors, the ALJ found no actual harm. The student's speech-language pathologist at Mark Keppel was already providing 240 minutes per month of individual therapy — the higher of the two figures listed — and was working on the student's IEP goals. All students in the recommended class received adapted physical education. Because the errors did not impede the student's education, deprive her of services, or block the mother's meaningful participation, they did not constitute a denial of FAPE.
Placement in moderate-to-severe program was appropriate: The ALJ found that the student's developmental functioning — pre-symbolic range, 18–24 month level — was well-matched to the moderate-to-severe special day class. All credible witnesses agreed the placement was appropriate. The mother's belief that the student was performing at a higher level was not supported by any expert testimony or documentary evidence.
Mother meaningfully participated: The ALJ found that the mother attended all three IEP meetings, raised concerns at each one, and received written responses to her concerns. The district's refusal to provide a list of all available programs or adopt her preferred communication approach did not amount to a denial of meaningful participation. A district does not have to agree with a parent's requests to satisfy its procedural obligations.
No behavior plan was required: School staff consistently observed the student as cooperative, well-behaved, and able to stay on task for up to 30 minutes with aide support. There was no evidence of problem behavior requiring a behavior intervention plan or a dedicated behavior aide.

What Was Ordered

Alhambra Unified School District was authorized to implement the February 5, March 22, and May 22, 2018 IEPs without the mother's written consent, provided the student remained enrolled in Alhambra for the 2018-2019 school year.
All of the parent's requested remedies — including a change of placement to a mild-to-moderate program, a behavior intervention plan, a behavior aide, and a list of alternative programs — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Paperwork errors alone rarely overturn an IEP. The district made real mistakes — conflicting service entries that even the speech therapist found confusing. But because the student was actually receiving the services, the ALJ did not penalize the district. Parents should document whether services described in the IEP are being delivered as written, because actual gaps in services carry much more legal weight than clerical errors.
You have a right to participate, but not to dictate. The law requires districts to listen to your concerns, respond to them, and keep you informed — not to follow your instructions. A district can reject your preferred placement, communication approach, or service model and still be in compliance, as long as its offer is backed by assessments and staff expertise.
Expert evidence matters enormously. The mother's disagreement with the placement was based on her personal observations and a private assessment from six years earlier that was never submitted into evidence. The district had multiple credentialed professionals testifying consistently. If you believe your child is performing at a higher level than assessments show, bring an independent evaluator to testify — opinions without documentation are very difficult to win on.
Districts are not required to show you all available programs. Alhambra refused to give the mother a list of placement options beyond the recommended one. The ALJ found this was permissible. However, districts are required to inform you about the continuum of placements. Ask for a prior written notice explaining why other placements were rejected — that creates a clearer record and may reveal gaps in the district's reasoning.
If a prior hearing already decided an issue, it binds future proceedings. An earlier OAH decision (Case No. 2017070426) had already ruled that the district's psychoeducational and speech-language assessments were appropriate. The ALJ in this case took official notice of that ruling and did not re-litigate the question. If you disagree with an OAH decision, you must appeal it to court — relitigating the same issue in a new due process hearing is generally not available.