Aide Used Painful Restraints and Hand Sanitizer on Nonverbal Student with Autism

A nonverbal nine-year-old with autism, intellectual disability, and speech/language impairment was subjected to repeated physical restraints, arm-twisting, and deliberate application of hand sanitizer to his cracked hands by his behavioral aide — all outside his positive behavior support plan. The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District was found to have materially failed to implement the student's IEP, denying him a FAPE and causing significant behavioral, cognitive, and communicative regression. The ALJ ordered the district to fund a two-year Pivotal Response Training program at UC Santa Barbara for the student and his family.

What Happened

The student was a nine-year-old nonverbal boy diagnosed with autism, intellectual disability, and speech/language impairment. He communicated using sign language, an Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC) device, and verbal approximations. He had a history of self-injurious behavior, physical aggression, and elopement, and his school — Juan Cabrillo Elementary in Santa Monica — had developed detailed positive behavior support plans (PBSPs) to address these challenges using applied behavior analysis (ABA) strategies like praise, token rewards, and calming techniques. None of his three PBSPs in effect during the 2017–2018 school year authorized holds, restraints, harnesses, or any aversive behavioral technique.

Beginning in September 2017 and continuing through January 2018, the student's behavioral aide, Galit Gottlieb, repeatedly used unauthorized and harmful interventions on the student. On the school bus, she strapped him into a five-point mechanical harness at least 15–19 times when there was no behavioral emergency, grabbed and twisted his wrists and arms hard enough to leave red marks, and yanked him so forcefully the bus vibrated. In the classroom, she applied alcohol-based hand sanitizer directly to his chapped, cracked hands at least three times to cause deliberate pain, and threatened him with the bottle at least 15 more times to coerce his compliance — bragging to coworkers that the threat alone was enough to control him. The bus driver, a 23-year veteran, reported the abuse to supervisors on multiple occasions. A video from January 24, 2018 confirmed that Ms. Gottlieb had placed the student in the harness when no emergency existed. Ms. Gottlieb filed only one behavioral emergency report during the entire school year, when state law required one each time emergency interventions were used. Expert testimony established that the repeated trauma caused by these aversive techniques produced a catastrophic decline in the student's behavior, communication, and cognition — a trajectory that was not predictable and not explained by other factors like staff turnover or health issues.

What the District Did Wrong

Materially failed to implement the positive behavior support plans. All three of the student's 2017 PBSPs required positive ABA strategies — praise, tokens, calming techniques, and functional communication prompts. None authorized harnesses, holds, restraints, arm-twisting, or aversive pain-based techniques. The aide bypassed these plans entirely and substituted unauthorized punitive methods.
Aide used mechanical restraints without justification. Ms. Gottlieb placed the student in a five-point bus harness between 15 and 19 times when no behavioral emergency existed. She removed it just before arriving at school or at home, suggesting deliberate concealment from parents and administrators. Video evidence directly contradicted her claim that the harness was used for safety.
Aide used corporal punishment. Ms. Gottlieb deliberately applied alcohol-based hand sanitizer to the student's open, cracked skin to cause pain and compel compliance. This constitutes willful infliction of physical pain — the legal definition of corporal punishment under California Education Code section 49001 — and was categorically prohibited.
Aide used aversive techniques as a behavior management system. Ms. Gottlieb threatened the student with the hand sanitizer bottle at least 15 additional times, knowing he would comply out of fear of pain. She used fear and pain as substitutes for the positive behavioral strategies his IEP required.
Failed to file required behavioral emergency reports. Each time an emergency intervention was used, state law required an immediate behavioral emergency report. Ms. Gottlieb filed only one during the entire school year. This meant administrators and parents were not notified, and the IEP team never had the opportunity to respond or update the plan.
Student suffered demonstrable harm. An expert behavioral analyst (Board Certified Behavior Analyst and doctoral researcher in trauma in nonverbal children with developmental disabilities) testified convincingly that the repeated aversive techniques caused the student significant trauma. His behavioral incidents escalated from near-zero to dozens per day; he began biting through aides' protective clothing; home service providers refused to work with him; and he lost previously acquired communication and compliance skills. The expert concluded this trajectory was consistent with trauma in a nonverbal child with autism and intellectual disability — not with routine factors like health problems or staff changes.

What Was Ordered

Pivotal Response Training program funded by the district. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District was ordered to directly fund enrollment in the University of California, Santa Barbara Pivotal Response Training (PRT) program for the student and his family.
Initial intensive assessment included. The order covers the program's multi-day comprehensive developmental, communication, and behavioral assessment as a starting point.
Ongoing consultation for two years. The district must fund up to 20 hours per month of expert consultation through the PRT program for a period of two years, to be used by June 30, 2023.
Alternative program authorized. If UCSB is unavailable, the family may use another recognized center of excellence in Pivotal Response Training (such as Kennedy Krieger, the Anderson Clinic, or the University of North Texas).
Unilateral NPS/residential placement denied. The ALJ declined to order the district to fund any non-public school or residential treatment center of the parents' choosing until age 22. Because the student was already attending a non-public school through the IEP process, placement decisions were left to the IEP team and parents through the normal IEP process.
Issue 2 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The claim that district staff failed to report the aide's conduct to police or child protective services was dismissed. The ALJ found that claim was grounded in criminal and child welfare law, not the IDEA, and therefore fell outside OAH's authority — though the dismissal on the merits was noted to preserve the family's right to pursue those claims in other legal venues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child's behavior support plan is a legally binding document — deviations from it can constitute a FAPE denial. If school staff are using holds, restraints, or any technique not written into your child's PBSP or IEP, that is not just a policy violation — it may be a material failure to implement the IEP. You have the right to request documentation of every behavioral intervention used and to compare it against what the plan actually authorizes.
Request behavioral emergency reports immediately after any incident. California law requires schools to file a behavioral emergency report every time an emergency intervention (hold, restraint, etc.) is used on a student with a disability. If your child's school is using these techniques but not filing reports, that is both a legal violation and a red flag that interventions may be happening without oversight. Ask for copies of all behavioral emergency reports in your child's file at every IEP meeting.
Regression in behavior or communication is not always "just autism" — it can be evidence of harm. If your child experiences a sudden, unexplained escalation in aggression, self-injury, or communication loss, do not accept generic explanations like staff turnover or health issues without investigation. Expert testimony in this case established that a consistent behavioral trajectory that abruptly worsens can be a sign of trauma, particularly in nonverbal children who cannot tell you what is happening.
Bus aides and paraprofessionals are bound by your child's IEP in all settings. The IEP governs behavior support not just in the classroom but on the bus, in the cafeteria, and everywhere the school provides services. If you suspect a bus aide is using unauthorized techniques, you can request that your district review bus video recordings. Many districts routinely record school bus rides, and those recordings can be critical evidence.
OAH is not the only venue — preserve your rights to go to court. The ALJ dismissed the claim about staff failure to report abuse to police or child protective services because it fell outside the IDEA. However, the decision was written in a way that preserved the family's ability to pursue those claims elsewhere. If your child has been harmed by a school employee, the IDEA due process system may only address part of the problem. Consulting an attorney about civil rights claims, Section 504, or criminal referrals may be necessary to obtain full accountability and relief.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Materially failed to implement the positive behavior support plans. All three of the student's 2017 PBSPs required positive ABA strategies — praise, tokens, calming techniques, and functional communication prompts. None authorized harnesses, holds, restraints, arm-twisting, or aversive pain-based techniques. The aide bypassed these plans entirely and substituted unauthorized punitive methods.
Aide used mechanical restraints without justification. Ms. Gottlieb placed the student in a five-point bus harness between 15 and 19 times when no behavioral emergency existed. She removed it just before arriving at school or at home, suggesting deliberate concealment from parents and administrators. Video evidence directly contradicted her claim that the harness was used for safety.
Aide used corporal punishment. Ms. Gottlieb deliberately applied alcohol-based hand sanitizer to the student's open, cracked skin to cause pain and compel compliance. This constitutes willful infliction of physical pain — the legal definition of corporal punishment under California Education Code section 49001 — and was categorically prohibited.
Aide used aversive techniques as a behavior management system. Ms. Gottlieb threatened the student with the hand sanitizer bottle at least 15 additional times, knowing he would comply out of fear of pain. She used fear and pain as substitutes for the positive behavioral strategies his IEP required.
Failed to file required behavioral emergency reports. Each time an emergency intervention was used, state law required an immediate behavioral emergency report. Ms. Gottlieb filed only one during the entire school year. This meant administrators and parents were not notified, and the IEP team never had the opportunity to respond or update the plan.
Student suffered demonstrable harm. An expert behavioral analyst (Board Certified Behavior Analyst and doctoral researcher in trauma in nonverbal children with developmental disabilities) testified convincingly that the repeated aversive techniques caused the student significant trauma. His behavioral incidents escalated from near-zero to dozens per day; he began biting through aides' protective clothing; home service providers refused to work with him; and he lost previously acquired communication and compliance skills. The expert concluded this trajectory was consistent with trauma in a nonverbal child with autism and intellectual disability — not with routine factors like health problems or staff changes.

What Was Ordered

Pivotal Response Training program funded by the district. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District was ordered to directly fund enrollment in the University of California, Santa Barbara Pivotal Response Training (PRT) program for the student and his family.
Initial intensive assessment included. The order covers the program's multi-day comprehensive developmental, communication, and behavioral assessment as a starting point.
Ongoing consultation for two years. The district must fund up to 20 hours per month of expert consultation through the PRT program for a period of two years, to be used by June 30, 2023.
Alternative program authorized. If UCSB is unavailable, the family may use another recognized center of excellence in Pivotal Response Training (such as Kennedy Krieger, the Anderson Clinic, or the University of North Texas).
Unilateral NPS/residential placement denied. The ALJ declined to order the district to fund any non-public school or residential treatment center of the parents' choosing until age 22. Because the student was already attending a non-public school through the IEP process, placement decisions were left to the IEP team and parents through the normal IEP process.
Issue 2 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The claim that district staff failed to report the aide's conduct to police or child protective services was dismissed. The ALJ found that claim was grounded in criminal and child welfare law, not the IDEA, and therefore fell outside OAH's authority — though the dismissal on the merits was noted to preserve the family's right to pursue those claims in other legal venues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child's behavior support plan is a legally binding document — deviations from it can constitute a FAPE denial. If school staff are using holds, restraints, or any technique not written into your child's PBSP or IEP, that is not just a policy violation — it may be a material failure to implement the IEP. You have the right to request documentation of every behavioral intervention used and to compare it against what the plan actually authorizes.
Request behavioral emergency reports immediately after any incident. California law requires schools to file a behavioral emergency report every time an emergency intervention (hold, restraint, etc.) is used on a student with a disability. If your child's school is using these techniques but not filing reports, that is both a legal violation and a red flag that interventions may be happening without oversight. Ask for copies of all behavioral emergency reports in your child's file at every IEP meeting.
Regression in behavior or communication is not always "just autism" — it can be evidence of harm. If your child experiences a sudden, unexplained escalation in aggression, self-injury, or communication loss, do not accept generic explanations like staff turnover or health issues without investigation. Expert testimony in this case established that a consistent behavioral trajectory that abruptly worsens can be a sign of trauma, particularly in nonverbal children who cannot tell you what is happening.
Bus aides and paraprofessionals are bound by your child's IEP in all settings. The IEP governs behavior support not just in the classroom but on the bus, in the cafeteria, and everywhere the school provides services. If you suspect a bus aide is using unauthorized techniques, you can request that your district review bus video recordings. Many districts routinely record school bus rides, and those recordings can be critical evidence.
OAH is not the only venue — preserve your rights to go to court. The ALJ dismissed the claim about staff failure to report abuse to police or child protective services because it fell outside the IDEA. However, the decision was written in a way that preserved the family's ability to pursue those claims elsewhere. If your child has been harmed by a school employee, the IDEA due process system may only address part of the problem. Consulting an attorney about civil rights claims, Section 504, or criminal referrals may be necessary to obtain full accountability and relief.