LAUSD Held IEP Meeting Without Parent — Ordered to Provide Compensatory Tutoring

A parent filed for due process after Los Angeles Unified School District held an annual IEP meeting on May 31, 2019, without her present, despite her repeated requests to reschedule. The ALJ found LAUSD violated the IDEA by proceeding without parental participation when the parent had never refused to attend and had a documented medical conflict. The district was ordered to provide compensatory tutoring until a new IEP meeting with parental participation was held, and to train the IEP team members involved.

What Happened

Student was an 8-year-old child with autism, developmental delays, speech and language needs, and a physical injury to her brachial plexus nerve network that limited the use of her arms and required staff assistance with toileting. Student had not regularly attended school since the 2017–2018 school year, in part because Parents believed school staff was neglecting and retaliating against Student due to ongoing complaints about the handling of her toileting needs. This case was the fourth due process action filed between these parties in roughly two years, reflecting a deeply strained relationship between Parents and Los Angeles Unified School District.

Because the 2019–2020 school year was starting later than usual, LAUSD realized that Student's annual IEP meeting — which had last been held on August 16, 2018 — needed to take place before teachers left for summer break on June 10, 2019. The district's assistant principal began notifying Parents of meeting dates in early May 2019, but communication was difficult and Parents did not respond promptly. On the morning of May 31, 2019, Parent emailed that she had a doctor's appointment and would try to attend, asking that the meeting be rescheduled if she could not make it. The district held the IEP meeting anyway, without Parent present, after leaving a single voicemail during the meeting itself. Parents then filed this due process complaint.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that LAUSD violated the IDEA by holding the May 31, 2019 IEP meeting without Parents. Federal law is clear that a school district may only hold an IEP meeting without a parent if it has been "unable to convince" the parent to attend — and even then it must keep detailed records of its efforts. Here, Parent never refused to attend. She consistently expressed a desire to participate and asked for a reschedule due to a medical appointment. LAUSD had made only six emails and one phone call (placed during the meeting itself) to reach Parents over the entire month of May.

The ALJ relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Doug C. v. Hawaii Dept. of Education, which holds that a school district cannot prioritize its own staff's scheduling needs or its need to meet deadlines over a parent's right to attend. By limiting Parents' available meeting times to a narrow window of dates and hours, LAUSD showed it was putting its own convenience first. The ALJ also rejected LAUSD's argument that Parent had implicitly given permission for the meeting to proceed by writing that she hoped the team would make "the right decisions" — that was hope, not consent. LAUSD's offer to hold a new IEP meeting the following school year did not fix the problem; the IDEA requires parental involvement in the original creation of the plan, not just after-the-fact review.

On the second issue — whether adding behavioral support services to the IEP denied Student a FAPE — the ALJ found that Parents had not met their burden of proof. Student's autism caused communication difficulties and social withdrawal, and the behavior supports were designed to help her self-advocate, including around her toileting needs. Parents argued the services were a pretext to label Student as a problem child, but presented no evidence beyond their own beliefs and suspicions. This claim was denied.

What Was Ordered

LAUSD must provide Student with one hour of compensatory tutoring — from either a Home and Hospital Instruction provider or a private tutoring service, at Parents' choice — for every school day missed from June 1, 2019 onward, until a new IEP meeting is held with Parents' participation and a new offer of FAPE is made.
Within 10 school days of the decision, Parents must propose at least five dates for the new IEP meeting, no earlier than 10 school days out and within 40 school days of the decision. LAUSD must respond within five school days and select one date.
The compensatory tutoring stops accruing if Parents fail to show at an agreed meeting time they proposed, or no later than three months after the decision date.
Every LAUSD IEP team member who attended the May 31, 2019 meeting must complete at least four hours of training on IEP meeting scheduling within two months of the order.
All other relief requested by Parents — including $20,000,000 in damages and private school placement — was denied as not available through OAH.

Why This Matters for Parents

A parent's desire to reschedule is not the same as refusing to attend. Under federal law, a school district can only hold an IEP meeting without you if it genuinely cannot convince you to come. If you have asked for a reschedule — especially for a legitimate reason like a medical appointment — the district does not have the legal right to proceed without you.
Districts cannot use their own scheduling limits to override your right to be there. If a district offers you only a narrow set of times and refuses to consider other options, that itself may be a violation. The law requires the district to schedule IEP meetings at a mutually agreed-upon time and place, not just whatever is convenient for staff.
One phone call during the meeting does not count as making reasonable efforts to include you. LAUSD's single voicemail placed while the meeting was already underway was not enough. The district must document repeated, genuine attempts to reach you before proceeding.
To win on a claim about inappropriate services, you need more than suspicion — you need evidence. Parents believed the behavioral services were added in bad faith, but the ALJ found no supporting evidence. If you believe a service is inappropriate or motivated by improper reasons, gather documentation: emails, records, statements from staff, or expert opinions.
Keeping your child home from school can complicate your ability to get full relief. The ALJ noted that calculating appropriate compensation was made harder because Student had been out of school for most of the school year. While the student was not penalized for the parent's decision, it is worth knowing that extended absences can limit what a hearing officer can order.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

LAUSD must provide Student with one hour of compensatory tutoring — from either a Home and Hospital Instruction provider or a private tutoring service, at Parents' choice — for every school day missed from June 1, 2019 onward, until a new IEP meeting is held with Parents' participation and a new offer of FAPE is made.
Within 10 school days of the decision, Parents must propose at least five dates for the new IEP meeting, no earlier than 10 school days out and within 40 school days of the decision. LAUSD must respond within five school days and select one date.
The compensatory tutoring stops accruing if Parents fail to show at an agreed meeting time they proposed, or no later than three months after the decision date.
Every LAUSD IEP team member who attended the May 31, 2019 meeting must complete at least four hours of training on IEP meeting scheduling within two months of the order.
All other relief requested by Parents — including $20,000,000 in damages and private school placement — was denied as not available through OAH.

Why This Matters for Parents

A parent's desire to reschedule is not the same as refusing to attend. Under federal law, a school district can only hold an IEP meeting without you if it genuinely cannot convince you to come. If you have asked for a reschedule — especially for a legitimate reason like a medical appointment — the district does not have the legal right to proceed without you.
Districts cannot use their own scheduling limits to override your right to be there. If a district offers you only a narrow set of times and refuses to consider other options, that itself may be a violation. The law requires the district to schedule IEP meetings at a mutually agreed-upon time and place, not just whatever is convenient for staff.
One phone call during the meeting does not count as making reasonable efforts to include you. LAUSD's single voicemail placed while the meeting was already underway was not enough. The district must document repeated, genuine attempts to reach you before proceeding.
To win on a claim about inappropriate services, you need more than suspicion — you need evidence. Parents believed the behavioral services were added in bad faith, but the ALJ found no supporting evidence. If you believe a service is inappropriate or motivated by improper reasons, gather documentation: emails, records, statements from staff, or expert opinions.
Keeping your child home from school can complicate your ability to get full relief. The ALJ noted that calculating appropriate compensation was made harder because Student had been out of school for most of the school year. While the student was not penalized for the parent's decision, it is worth knowing that extended absences can limit what a hearing officer can order.