District Wins Right to Move Dangerous 8-Year-Old to Therapeutic Program Over Parent Objection

Arcadia Unified School District filed an expedited due process hearing to remove an eight-year-old boy with emotional disturbance from his general education placement after he repeatedly injured staff and peers. ALJ Sabrina Kong ruled that the district proved his continued placement was substantially likely to cause injury, and authorized a 45-school-day transfer to the GOALS therapeutic program. Parents objected to the move but the ALJ found their concerns insufficient to block it.

What Happened

The student was an eight-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. He attended Hugo Reid Elementary School in a general education classroom with a full-time instructional aide. Since his eligibility was established in January 2018, he exhibited frequent and serious aggressive behaviors — including hitting, kicking, throwing furniture and objects, spitting, biting, threatening peers, and eloping from campus — that injured staff and classmates and generated multiple workers' compensation claims. During the first semester of the 2018–2019 school year, he demonstrated these behaviors on approximately 45 of 74 school days, spent 75 percent of his time outside the classroom, and was suspended six times. Most seriously, in December 2018 he struck a peer in the temple with a closed fist, and that peer showed concussion symptoms afterward.

The district convened multiple IEP meetings and implemented a behavior intervention plan, added intensive counseling, and adjusted academic demands — but the behaviors did not improve enough to keep the student or others safe. The district proposed transferring him to GOALS, a therapeutic special day class program at Longden Elementary School in Temple City, but both parents refused to consent. The district then filed this expedited due process hearing requesting authorization to make the placement change without parental consent. Parents argued that the district's staff was simply incompetent, that their son had not caused serious enough injuries to meet the legal standard, and that the GOALS program was inappropriate based on a prior summer placement there that they viewed as unsuccessful and punitive.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor on both issues. Key findings included:

The student's behaviors were substantially likely to cause injury. The ALJ found overwhelming evidence that the student's aggressive and elopement behaviors were frequent, unpredictable, and had already caused real injuries — including a peer showing concussion symptoms, an aide with arm injuries resulting in a workers' compensation claim, another aide who fell, and two biting incidents. Staff credibly testified that they could not reliably prevent injuries because the student was fast and unpredictable when escalated.
Intent to harm and severity of past injury are not required. The ALJ applied the legal standard from Light v. Parkway C-2 School District (8th Cir. 1995), which holds that a school does not need to prove a child meant to hurt anyone, nor that anyone has been seriously hurt yet. The question is only whether injury is objectively likely to occur. Parents' arguments that their son was not malicious and had not caused "severe" injuries were rejected as legally irrelevant.
The parents' own admissions undercut their position. Both parents agreed that Arcadia's staff was unable to prevent the student's maladaptive behaviors. They blamed staff incompetence, but offered no evidence that better implementation of the IEP or behavior plan would have eliminated the safety risk. Their explanation did not provide a legal basis for keeping the student in his current placement.
GOALS was found to be an appropriate interim alternative educational setting. The program offered specially trained staff (including a teacher credentialed for emotional disturbance, a dedicated school psychologist, and aides certified in crisis prevention intervention), a low adult-to-student ratio, embedded social-emotional supports, and a fenced campus that reduced elopement risk. Crucially, GOALS included a pathway for students to earn their way back into general education as behavior improved, consistent with the student's IEP goals.
The prior GOALS placement during summer 2018 did not prove the program was inappropriate. The ALJ found that 20 days was too short for the student to experience the program's reward system — he spent 18 of those 20 days in the consequences phase because he was still engaging in maladaptive behaviors. The ALJ credited district witnesses who explained that a full 45-day placement would give the student a genuine opportunity to benefit from the program.

What Was Ordered

The district was authorized to transfer the student to GOALS as an interim alternative educational setting for a period not to exceed 45 school days, beginning from the student's first day of attendance at GOALS.
The district was not required to obtain parental consent before making the placement change.
All of the parents' requests — including keeping the student in his general education placement at Hugo Reid Elementary School — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts can remove your child without your consent if they can prove a safety risk. Under the IDEA, if a district files an expedited hearing and proves that your child's current placement is "substantially likely" to result in injury, a hearing officer can authorize a placement change for up to 45 school days even if you refuse to consent. This is a specific legal exception to the general rule that a district cannot change placement without parent agreement.
"No serious injuries yet" is not a winning argument. The law does not require a child to seriously hurt someone before a district can act. Courts and hearing officers look at the objective likelihood of future injury based on the pattern of behavior — not whether past injuries were severe or whether the child intended harm. If your child has a history of dangerous behaviors, understand that the legal bar for removal is lower than many parents expect.
Blaming staff incompetence is not enough on its own. If you believe the district is mishandling your child's behaviors, you need to document and present specific evidence that proper IEP implementation would have prevented the safety concern — not just a general claim that staff did a poor job. The parents in this case agreed staff was ineffective but could not explain how better staff performance would have eliminated the injury risk.
A child's dislike of a program, or a parent's negative impression, does not make the program legally inappropriate. The ALJ gave little weight to the parents' objections to GOALS based on their son's reports that he didn't like it and their view that it felt punitive. For an alternative placement to be rejected, there must be evidence it cannot meet the child's educational needs — not just that it is unpopular with the family.
If your child has significant behavioral challenges, proactively seek a more intensive placement before a crisis forces one. This family went through years of escalating incidents, injuries, and suspensions before the district took legal action. Parents of children with emotional disturbance or serious behavioral needs may want to proactively request a more specialized program, a higher staff-to-student ratio, or a functional behavior assessment update before behaviors reach the point where the district seeks emergency removal.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor on both issues. Key findings included:

The student's behaviors were substantially likely to cause injury. The ALJ found overwhelming evidence that the student's aggressive and elopement behaviors were frequent, unpredictable, and had already caused real injuries — including a peer showing concussion symptoms, an aide with arm injuries resulting in a workers' compensation claim, another aide who fell, and two biting incidents. Staff credibly testified that they could not reliably prevent injuries because the student was fast and unpredictable when escalated.
Intent to harm and severity of past injury are not required. The ALJ applied the legal standard from Light v. Parkway C-2 School District (8th Cir. 1995), which holds that a school does not need to prove a child meant to hurt anyone, nor that anyone has been seriously hurt yet. The question is only whether injury is objectively likely to occur. Parents' arguments that their son was not malicious and had not caused "severe" injuries were rejected as legally irrelevant.
The parents' own admissions undercut their position. Both parents agreed that Arcadia's staff was unable to prevent the student's maladaptive behaviors. They blamed staff incompetence, but offered no evidence that better implementation of the IEP or behavior plan would have eliminated the safety risk. Their explanation did not provide a legal basis for keeping the student in his current placement.
GOALS was found to be an appropriate interim alternative educational setting. The program offered specially trained staff (including a teacher credentialed for emotional disturbance, a dedicated school psychologist, and aides certified in crisis prevention intervention), a low adult-to-student ratio, embedded social-emotional supports, and a fenced campus that reduced elopement risk. Crucially, GOALS included a pathway for students to earn their way back into general education as behavior improved, consistent with the student's IEP goals.
The prior GOALS placement during summer 2018 did not prove the program was inappropriate. The ALJ found that 20 days was too short for the student to experience the program's reward system — he spent 18 of those 20 days in the consequences phase because he was still engaging in maladaptive behaviors. The ALJ credited district witnesses who explained that a full 45-day placement would give the student a genuine opportunity to benefit from the program.

What Was Ordered

The district was authorized to transfer the student to GOALS as an interim alternative educational setting for a period not to exceed 45 school days, beginning from the student's first day of attendance at GOALS.
The district was not required to obtain parental consent before making the placement change.
All of the parents' requests — including keeping the student in his general education placement at Hugo Reid Elementary School — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts can remove your child without your consent if they can prove a safety risk. Under the IDEA, if a district files an expedited hearing and proves that your child's current placement is "substantially likely" to result in injury, a hearing officer can authorize a placement change for up to 45 school days even if you refuse to consent. This is a specific legal exception to the general rule that a district cannot change placement without parent agreement.
"No serious injuries yet" is not a winning argument. The law does not require a child to seriously hurt someone before a district can act. Courts and hearing officers look at the objective likelihood of future injury based on the pattern of behavior — not whether past injuries were severe or whether the child intended harm. If your child has a history of dangerous behaviors, understand that the legal bar for removal is lower than many parents expect.
Blaming staff incompetence is not enough on its own. If you believe the district is mishandling your child's behaviors, you need to document and present specific evidence that proper IEP implementation would have prevented the safety concern — not just a general claim that staff did a poor job. The parents in this case agreed staff was ineffective but could not explain how better staff performance would have eliminated the injury risk.
A child's dislike of a program, or a parent's negative impression, does not make the program legally inappropriate. The ALJ gave little weight to the parents' objections to GOALS based on their son's reports that he didn't like it and their view that it felt punitive. For an alternative placement to be rejected, there must be evidence it cannot meet the child's educational needs — not just that it is unpopular with the family.
If your child has significant behavioral challenges, proactively seek a more intensive placement before a crisis forces one. This family went through years of escalating incidents, injuries, and suspensions before the district took legal action. Parents of children with emotional disturbance or serious behavioral needs may want to proactively request a more specialized program, a higher staff-to-student ratio, or a functional behavior assessment update before behaviors reach the point where the district seeks emergency removal.