District Wins After Parent Cannot Prove Residency in Mt. Diablo USD

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance. He was placed at the Contra Costa County-operated Floyd I. Marchus School in Concord, a placement all parties agreed was appropriate. The placement was funded by Mt. Diablo Unified School District under a memorandum of understanding with the County Office of Education.

In early 2019, the district grew suspicious that Parent did not actually live within district boundaries. After conducting home visits and reviewing social media, the district concluded that Parent and Student primarily resided in Vallejo — outside the district — and disenrolled Student on February 22, 2019, with one day's notice. Student lost 23 school days of instruction before an OAH stay-put order reinstated his placement on April 8, 2019. Parent filed for due process, arguing the disenrollment was improper, that the district failed to implement Student's IEP, and that the district violated her procedural rights by not providing proper written notice before disenrolling him.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on all three issues. The central question was whether Parent lived within Mt. Diablo's boundaries, because a district is only responsible for educating students who reside within it. The ALJ found that Parent failed to prove her residency in Concord by a preponderance of the evidence.

Parent's documentary evidence was thin — an ID card from 2015, a partial Social Security letter, IRS Medi-Cal confirmations with no date of address entry, and documents created only after the residency dispute began. Critically, Parent did not produce the kinds of records a person living at an address for eight years would typically have: no bank statements, no cell phone bills, no Fastrak toll records, no tax returns. The ALJ drew a negative inference from these omissions, meaning he concluded the missing records would have hurt Parent's case.

Parent's credibility was significantly damaged at hearing. Her Facebook profile stated she "Lives in Vallejo, California" before she became aware the district was investigating. She initially denied writing it and suggested her account had been hacked — an explanation the ALJ found implausible. She also submitted false information on her younger child's kindergarten enrollment form, listing her fiancé's address as Concord when he actually lived in Vallejo. Even Parent's own testimony supported the district's position: she acknowledged spending three-day weekends in Vallejo, driving Student to school from Vallejo roughly twice a week, and spending nearly the entire summer of 2018 in Vallejo.

On the procedural notice issue, the ALJ found that even if the district technically should have provided formal prior written notice before disenrolling Student, any violation was harmless. Parent had received two weeks of informal notice, multiple emails and calls explaining the district's reasoning, and referrals to administrators who could explain the appeals process. She chose litigation over the district's internal appeal process. More fundamentally, the ALJ held that procedural protections under the IDEA only apply where a district actually owes a student a FAPE — and because Student was not a resident, the district owed him nothing.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. The stay-put order issued on March 28, 2019 was vacated.
3. Mt. Diablo Unified School District and the Contra Costa County Office of Education were found to have prevailed on all three issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Residency is the foundation of your district's duty to educate your child. If a district can show your child does not live within its boundaries, it has no legal obligation to provide special education services — no matter how strong the IEP or how appropriate the placement. Keep clear, current documentation of your address at all times.

2. Your social media posts can be used against you in a due process hearing. The district discovered Parent's Facebook statement that she "Lives in Vallejo" through a simple internet search. Anything you post publicly about where you live, who you live with, or how you identify yourself can become evidence.

3. Strong documentary evidence of residency matters — gather it before a dispute arises. The ALJ specifically noted the absence of bank statements, utility bills, cell phone records, and Fastrak toll records. If you are in a multi-household living situation, document your primary residence with as many current, independent sources as possible.

4. Skipping the district's internal appeals process can hurt your case. Parent chose to go straight to due process rather than use the district's internal residency appeal procedure. The ALJ noted this meant she could not complain about information she would have learned in that process. When a district offers an internal appeal, consider using it — it preserves your rights and builds your record.