District Wins Right to Assess 17-Year-Old With Autism Over Mother's Objection

What Happened

Student is a 17-year-old with autism and intellectual disability who attends a nonpublic school through his IEP. Both Mother and Father hold educational rights, meaning both parents must consent to major educational decisions. At an annual IEP meeting on May 28, 2019, the IEP team — including Father — agreed that a comprehensive reassessment was urgently needed. The team could not write accurate IEP goals because they lacked current information about Student's functioning levels. Compounding the problem, a prior OAH decision (case 2018081156, decided February 2019) had found that the district's most recent triennial assessment, conducted in early 2018, did not meet legal standards. Father consented to the new assessment plan on the spot. Mother did not attend the meeting and refused to consent.

The district proposed to assess Student in multiple areas including academic achievement, intellectual development, speech and language, adaptive behavior, and — critically — post-secondary transition planning, because Student was approaching age 18. When Mother refused to sign the assessment plan, the district sent her two written notices, attached procedural safeguards, offered resources for questions, and gave her more than 15 days to respond. Mother's advocate responded once to say Mother was traveling and would reply later, but Mother never consented. The district then filed for due process, asking the ALJ to authorize the assessment without Mother's consent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor. Mother raised three specific objections to the assessment plan, and the ALJ rejected all three.

Objection 1 — The "Alternate Means of Assessment" box wasn't checked. Mother believed the box needed to be checked because Student had historically not been assessed using standardized tools. The ALJ found this argument unpersuasive. District witnesses — including the school psychologist, the speech-language pathologist, and the special education director — all testified that assessors always retain the discretion to use informal or non-standardized measures when a student cannot access standardized tools, regardless of whether that box is checked. The box is only required when standardized tests are categorically prohibited, such as for certain student populations. Leaving the box unchecked did not invalidate the plan.

Objection 2 — The assessment plan wasn't presented at an IEP meeting. Mother argued that assessment plans must be offered during an IEP team meeting so parents can ask questions. The ALJ found no legal requirement supporting this position, and noted that Mother herself had previously consented to an assessment plan that was not presented at a meeting, which undermined her own argument.

Objection 3 — Assessing Student in his current (allegedly inappropriate) placement would produce inaccurate results. The ALJ rejected this as premature. The school psychologist explained that a comprehensive assessment includes observations across settings, parent and provider interviews, checklists, and both standardized and informal measures — none of which depend on any single placement being "correct." The ALJ noted that assessments are precisely what drive placement decisions, not the other way around. If Mother disagreed with the assessment results after they were produced, she could challenge them at that time.

The ALJ also found that the district satisfied its legal obligation to take "reasonable measures" to obtain Mother's consent: it sent two written notices with procedural safeguards attached, offered contact information for additional help, and gave Mother well over 15 days to respond.

What Was Ordered

1. Los Alamitos Unified School District is authorized to assess Student according to the May 28, 2019 proposed assessment plan without Mother's consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. When both parents share educational rights, either parent's consent can have consequences — but so can a refusal. In this case, Father's consent and Mother's refusal created a legal dispute. Parents who share educational rights should communicate with each other before IEP meetings where major decisions like assessments will be discussed.

2. A district can go to due process to override a parent's refusal to consent to an assessment. Under the IDEA, if a parent refuses to consent to a reevaluation and does not respond to the district's outreach, the district may seek authorization from a hearing officer. This case shows that courts will grant that authorization when the assessment is educationally justified and the district followed proper procedures.

3. Transition assessments become legally critical as a student approaches age 18. For students nearing adulthood, districts are required to assess transition-related skills — including independent living, adaptive behavior, and areas of interest — to plan for post-secondary life. Delaying this assessment can harm a student's transition planning.

4. Technical objections to an assessment plan must be grounded in actual legal requirements. Mother's objections about the unchecked box and the absence of an IEP meeting were not supported by law. Before refusing to consent to an assessment, parents should consult a special education advocate or attorney to confirm that their specific objections are legally valid — not just procedurally unfamiliar.

5. Challenging an assessment's validity is easier after it happens, not before. The ALJ noted that concerns about whether an assessment will produce accurate results are premature until the assessment is actually conducted. Parents have the right to challenge assessment results — or request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) — after receiving a district assessment they believe is flawed.