Claims Against Modesto City Dismissed: Parent Waited Too Long to File

What Happened

Student is a child with autism who experienced severe trauma before moving to California from Oregon in 2013. Because of her disability and traumatic history, Student developed extreme anxiety that made it impossible for her to leave her home. While enrolled at Empire Union School District, Student received in-home behavioral support services through the Central Valley Autism Project, and she made meaningful progress — including the milestone of leaving her bedroom to attend her own birthday party in the kitchen. Those services ended when Student transitioned to high school under Modesto City Schools in the 2014–2015 school year.

At IEP meetings in October 2014, Modesto City told Parent that behavioral support services, occupational therapy, and other related services were only available at a school campus. The district refused to provide those services in the home, insisting Student would receive them only when she began attending school in person. Student, who could not tolerate the presence of others, never attended a school campus. For nearly three years — from 2014 to 2017 — Student remained in her bedroom, received almost no educational benefit, and was denied the in-home behavioral services Parent repeatedly requested. In April 2017, Parent moved to Turlock and enrolled Student in Turlock Unified School District. Parent filed this due process complaint in August 2019, naming both districts. During the hearing, Student and Turlock settled their claims. The hearing proceeded only on whether the claims against Modesto City were filed on time.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of Modesto City, finding that Parent's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Under both federal and California law, a parent must file a due process complaint within two years of when they "knew or had reason to know" of the facts underlying the complaint. Parent argued she did not realize Student was entitled to in-home services until a private provider told her so at a Turlock IEP meeting in February 2019 — which would have made her August 2019 filing timely.

The ALJ rejected that argument. The law does not require a parent to understand that a violation is legally actionable — only that the parent was aware of the underlying problem. Parent knew as early as October 2014 that Modesto City was refusing to provide in-home behavioral services, that Student had previously received those services and benefited from them, and that Student was regressing without them. That awareness was enough to start the two-year clock. Parent had until October 2016 to file and did not do so until August 2019 — more than two years after Student even left the district.

The ALJ also rejected Parent's argument that Modesto City's statements about its service delivery policies were "misrepresentations" that tolled the statute of limitations. Neither of the two legal exceptions applied: Modesto City never told Parent the problem was resolved, and any failure to provide formal written notice of its refusals did not prevent Parent from filing for due process — especially since Parent was actively arguing against those refusals at every IEP meeting.

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for relief against Modesto City Schools were denied in their entirety.
2. All claims against Modesto City were dismissed as barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
3. Claims against Turlock Unified School District were resolved by settlement prior to the decision and are not addressed in this ruling.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. The clock starts when you know there is a problem — not when you learn it is illegal. You do not need a lawyer or an IEP meeting to tell you your child's rights were violated before the deadline starts running. If your district is refusing to provide services your child needs, that refusal starts the two-year countdown immediately.

2. Actively fighting a district's position at IEP meetings is not a substitute for filing for due process. Parent in this case spent years arguing at IEP meetings for in-home behavioral services. That effort was admirable, but it did not pause or reset the filing deadline. If negotiations are not working, a due process complaint may be necessary to preserve your legal rights.

3. A district saying "we don't provide that service here" is not the same as resolving the problem. The two exceptions that can extend the filing deadline are narrow: the district must have told you the problem was fixed, or must have hidden legally required information from you. A district simply explaining its policy — even if that policy is wrong — does not qualify.

4. Keep a record of when you first knew your child was not getting what they needed. Courts and hearing officers look at the earliest date you were aware of a problem, not the date you understood it was a legal violation. Document every refusal in writing and consult a special education advocate or attorney promptly when services are denied.