District Wins Right to Assess Student With Autism Over Parents' Silence

What Happened

Student was a 9-year-old child eligible for special education under the categories of autism and specific learning disability, enrolled in Corona-Norco Unified School District. In February 2019, Parents abruptly pulled Student and his siblings out of school, claiming a staff member had physically assaulted Student by tugging on his shirt during a disciplinary incident. Multiple investigations — by the district, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, and the California Department of Education — all found Parents' claims unsubstantiated. Despite these findings, Student remained out of school for approximately eight months by October 2019.

Under federal and California law, students with disabilities must be reassessed at least once every three years. Student's last assessment was in December 2016, making a new triennial assessment due by December 2019. Beginning in October 2019, the district prepared and sent Parents a proposed assessment plan covering cognitive processing, academic achievement, social-emotional functioning, speech and language, occupational therapy, and educationally related mental health services. The district sent the plan multiple times — by email and mail — to both Parents and an attorney Parents had identified as their representative. Neither Parents nor the attorney ever responded. Parents also directed the district not to contact them directly, and the identified attorney never filed a notice of representation or returned any of the district's calls. With no consent forthcoming, the district filed for due process in February 2020 to obtain the right to assess Student without parental consent. Parents did not appear at the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor. She found that reassessment was clearly warranted for two independent reasons: first, the three-year triennial review was legally required; and second, Student had missed eight months of school, raising legitimate concerns about regression and missed instructional content that independently justified reassessment.

The ALJ also found that the district had done everything the law requires to obtain informed consent. The November 25, 2019 assessment plan was complete and legally compliant — it was written in plain English (Parents' native language), described the types of assessments proposed, named the qualified professionals who would conduct them, and clearly stated that no IEP changes would result without parental consent. It was accompanied by the required notice of parental rights and procedural safeguards. The district documented its outreach efforts across multiple months, including emails and written letters sent on October 3, October 15, November 4, November 25, 2019, and January 10, 2020. Because Parents had expressly told the district not to contact them directly, the ALJ found the district was excused from additional phone calls or home visits — written correspondence to Parents and their identified attorney was sufficient.

The ALJ also denied the district's request for an advisory ruling that it would be absolved of its obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) if Parents refused to make Student available for assessment. The ALJ explained that due process hearings can only resolve actual disputes — not issue advisory opinions about hypothetical future scenarios.

What Was Ordered

1. Corona-Norco Unified School District is authorized to assess Student pursuant to its November 25, 2019 assessment plan without parental consent.
2. All other relief requested by the district — including any declaration regarding future FAPE obligations — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Refusing to respond to assessment requests is not a safe strategy. Under federal and California law, if a parent does not respond to a properly documented assessment plan, the district can go to a due process hearing and obtain the legal right to assess your child without your consent. Silence is not protection — it can result in losing your say in the process entirely.

2. Districts must reassess your child at least every three years, and you cannot simply ignore that requirement. If you have concerns about an upcoming reassessment — the assessors, the areas being tested, or the tools being used — the right move is to engage with the district, ask questions, and negotiate, not to stop responding altogether.

3. If you direct a district to communicate through your attorney, make sure that attorney is actually responding. In this case, Parents identified an attorney to handle communications, but that attorney never responded to the district. The district was still found to have met its legal obligations. If your attorney goes silent, the district's procedural clock keeps running — and you may lose important rights.

4. Keeping your child out of school for extended periods can itself become a reason the district is entitled to reassess. The ALJ found that eight months of missed school created independent grounds for reassessment, separate from the triennial requirement. Extended absences can create legal pressure that actually reduces your control over the assessment process.