Fremont USD Prevails: Parent's Home Instruction and IEP Claims Denied

A parent filed due process against Fremont Unified School District on behalf of a student with emotional disturbance (anxiety), alleging failures in home instruction, counseling, placement, and IEP process from 2018 through 2020. The ALJ denied all ten of the parent's claims, finding that Fremont consistently provided qualified home instructors and required services, and that the parent's repeated refusal of those services and cancellation of IEP meetings was the primary obstacle to Student receiving her program.

What Happened

Student was a high school student eligible for special education as a student with emotional disturbance due to anxiety. Because of her severe anxiety and school avoidance, Student received her education primarily through home instruction rather than attending school in person. A prior settlement agreement between the parties (from 2017) governed much of Student's program, requiring Fremont to provide credentialed home instructors, placement in a general education elective at Kennedy High School, and individual counseling through Children's Health Council. Student turned 18 in February 2019, at which point educational decision-making rights transferred to her under the law.

Parent filed a due process complaint in February 2020 raising ten separate issues spanning nearly two years, alleging that Fremont failed to provide qualified home instructors, sufficient hours of instruction, appropriate counseling, and a proper IEP process. Parent also claimed that Fremont predetermined services at a March 2019 IEP meeting, created an adversarial environment, and failed to consider the recommendations of an independent neuropsychological evaluator, Dr. Peterson. Fremont countered that it consistently offered qualified teachers and services, but that Parent repeatedly turned away instructors, cancelled appointments and IEP meetings, and refused to allow Student to exercise her own educational rights after reaching adulthood.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in Fremont's favor on every single issue. On the home instruction claims, the ALJ found that Fremont provided credentialed teachers throughout the 2017-2018 school year, but Parent turned many away — sometimes for reasons as minor as not liking the tone of an instructor's voice, or because they could not work nights and weekends. The ALJ was clear: parents do not have the right to choose which district employees work with their child. When Parent later retained a private tutoring company (Varsity Tutors) on his own, and then the IEP team agreed to formalize Varsity Tutors as the provider for the 2018-2019 school year, Student did not attend all the sessions offered.

On the IEP process claims, the ALJ found no evidence of predetermination at the March 2019 IEP meeting. Fremont came to that meeting with an open mind, presented multiple placement options including Robertson High School (an alternative school), and made changes to Student's program based on Dr. Peterson's evaluation — including doubling counseling to two sessions per week and adding personal trainer support as an accommodation for community engagement. The ALJ noted that a district is not required to adopt every recommendation from an independent evaluator; it only must consider them. Fremont did so here.

On the question of parental participation, the ALJ found that after Student turned 18, it was legally appropriate — and indeed required — for Fremont to shift focus toward Student's own wishes and decision-making. Parent's frustration at being "left out" did not constitute a denial of FAPE. The delay in completing Student's annual IEP after March 2019 was attributed to Parent, who cancelled a June 2019 IEP meeting and then refused to schedule another for several months.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
Fremont prevailed on all ten issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot choose which district employees work with your child. The law gives districts the authority to assign qualified staff. As long as the instructors provided are credentialed and appropriate, a parent's preference for a different provider — including a private tutoring company — does not obligate the district to comply or reimburse.
Refusing services can undermine your own case. When a parent turns away providers, cancels appointments, or declines to attend IEP meetings, the ALJ may find that the district offered appropriate services and the student simply did not use them. Refusing services is not proof that services were denied.
Districts must consider independent evaluations — but not follow them exactly. If you obtain an independent neuropsychological evaluation, the district is required to review it and factor it into IEP decisions. However, the district can adopt some recommendations, modify others, and reject some, as long as it genuinely engages with the report. The ALJ found Fremont did exactly that here.
Once your child turns 18, educational rights transfer to them. Unless a student is conserved, the district is legally required to treat the adult student — not the parent — as the primary decision-maker. A district's shift in focus toward the student's own preferences at that point is not a procedural violation, even if the parent feels excluded.
Delays in finalizing an IEP caused by a parent cancelling meetings will not be held against the district. If you cancel or decline IEP meeting dates, the ALJ may conclude that any resulting gap in services or incomplete IEP is your responsibility, not the district's.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
Fremont prevailed on all ten issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot choose which district employees work with your child. The law gives districts the authority to assign qualified staff. As long as the instructors provided are credentialed and appropriate, a parent's preference for a different provider — including a private tutoring company — does not obligate the district to comply or reimburse.
Refusing services can undermine your own case. When a parent turns away providers, cancels appointments, or declines to attend IEP meetings, the ALJ may find that the district offered appropriate services and the student simply did not use them. Refusing services is not proof that services were denied.
Districts must consider independent evaluations — but not follow them exactly. If you obtain an independent neuropsychological evaluation, the district is required to review it and factor it into IEP decisions. However, the district can adopt some recommendations, modify others, and reject some, as long as it genuinely engages with the report. The ALJ found Fremont did exactly that here.
Once your child turns 18, educational rights transfer to them. Unless a student is conserved, the district is legally required to treat the adult student — not the parent — as the primary decision-maker. A district's shift in focus toward the student's own preferences at that point is not a procedural violation, even if the parent feels excluded.
Delays in finalizing an IEP caused by a parent cancelling meetings will not be held against the district. If you cancel or decline IEP meeting dates, the ALJ may conclude that any resulting gap in services or incomplete IEP is your responsibility, not the district's.