Chino Valley Wins: District's Autism Program Found Adequate for Pica, Elopement, and Safety Concerns

Parents of an eight-year-old student with autism filed due process against Chino Valley Unified School District, claiming the district's offered placement failed to address their daughter's pica disorder, elopement, and playground safety needs. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all three of the parents' issues, finding that the moderate-to-severe special day class at Liberty Elementary offered comparable services to the student's prior IEP and was reasonably calculated to keep her safe. The district also prevailed on its own issue, winning the right to assess the student without the conditions and limitations parents had imposed.

What Happened

An eight-year-old student with autism transferred into Chino Valley Unified School District in November 2019. Her prior IEP, developed by the Placentia-Yorba Linda School District, placed her in a moderate-to-severe special day class and included supports for oral sensory-seeking behaviors (sometimes called pica), elopement, and safety during unstructured time. When Chino Valley offered a comparable placement at Liberty Elementary — a county-run moderate-to-severe program — the parents refused to enroll their daughter there. Instead, they insisted on placement at ECE 4 Autism, a private nonpublic school in Orange, California. The parents rejected the Liberty placement before ever touring the campus, and the hearing revealed that they had been coached by the director of ECE 4 Autism on how to describe their daughter's behaviors and raise objections to any public school offer.

The student never attended school in Chino Valley during the 2019-2020 school year. After the parents filed for due process, Chino Valley also filed its own case seeking the right to assess the student, as the parents had signed a consent form but then refused to bring their daughter in for in-person testing. The ALJ consolidated both cases and, after a three-day hearing, found that Chino Valley's program adequately addressed the student's pica, elopement, and playground safety needs — and that the district had the right to assess the student without the parents' restrictive conditions.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of Chino Valley on all four issues. Here is what the evidence showed:

Pica behaviors were addressed by the proposed program. The IEP services offered — including chewable or edible substitutes, a low student-to-teacher ratio, and constant adult supervision — were the same supports contained in the student's last agreed-upon IEP from her prior district. Parents offered no witness or evidence to show these supports were inadequate. The ALJ also noted that the severity of the student's pica behaviors was not nearly as serious as parents had portrayed, and found credible evidence that the ECE 4 Autism director had coached the parents to exaggerate the student's symptoms to support placement at her school.
Playground safety concerns were not substantiated. Parents raised concerns that the student could not be kept safe during outdoor play, but offered no specific evidence about what additional safety measures would be needed or how Chino Valley's program failed to provide them. The offer included additional adult support during unstructured time and positive behavioral interventions identical to those in the prior IEP.
Elopement concerns did not make the placement inappropriate. The student had eloped approximately five times over 21 school days at her prior placement — not from campus, but from classrooms or designated areas. The ALJ found this was not an unusually severe elopement pattern for a student with autism. The Liberty campus was fully fenced, the gate nearest the special day classroom remained locked during school hours, and all students were supervised by adults at all times. The parents' claim that an unlocked gate posed a danger was not supported — that gate was near the bus drop-off area, far from the special day classroom.
Chino Valley was entitled to assess the student without parental conditions. The district proposed a comprehensive reassessment in July 2020, which the parents partially signed but then blocked by refusing in-person testing. The parents demanded that both parents, the student's uncle, and a sibling be present during assessments, threatened to interrupt testing if they felt it was unsafe, and asked that sanitizing products be removed from the room and a barricade placed at the door. The ALJ found these conditions would invalidate standardized test results and were unreasonable. The district demonstrated, through testimony from a school psychologist, occupational therapist, speech-language pathologist, and school nurse, that all required assessments must be conducted in person.

What Was Ordered

Chino Valley is entitled to assess the student under the July 7, 2020 assessment plan. The 60-day timeline to complete assessments began on the date of the decision (February 4, 2021).
Chino Valley must notify parents within 10 business days of the dates, times, and locations for assessments.
If the student is ill and cannot attend an assessment, parents must promptly notify the district and provide documentation from a qualified medical provider. Rescheduled assessments must occur within 30 days of the original proposed dates.
Parents must complete and return any documents requested as part of the assessments, such as rating scales and questionnaires.
Parents must comply with Chino Valley's assessment parameters, including allowing assessors to test and observe the student outside of the parents' presence and without parental interference.
Any delay caused by the parents' failure to produce the student for assessment will toll the 60-day deadline, and the district will not be required to provide special education services until parents comply.
All three of the parents' FAPE claims were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Coordinating with a private school to reject a public school offer can backfire badly. The ALJ gave significant weight to evidence that the ECE 4 Autism director coached the parents on what to say and which safety concerns to raise — before Chino Valley had even made an offer. This conduct damaged the parents' credibility throughout the hearing. If you prefer a specific placement, make sure your concerns are genuine and based on your child's actual documented needs, not scripted by a provider who stands to financially benefit.
You must give the proposed public placement a real chance. The parents refused to enroll their daughter at Liberty before ever visiting the campus or speaking with any staff. Courts and ALJs look at whether the district's offer was appropriate — not whether parents liked it. Rejecting a placement sight-unseen, without evidence it was inadequate, will almost always hurt your case.
"It might not be safe" is not enough — you need evidence. Parents repeatedly raised safety concerns about pica, elopement, and the playground without offering any expert testimony, independent assessments, or specific evidence showing how the program fell short. If your child has genuine safety needs, document them thoroughly and bring in qualified witnesses who can explain what additional supports are required and why.
You cannot block a legally required assessment with unreasonable conditions. Once you sign an assessment consent form, you cannot then impose conditions — like requiring that multiple family members be present, threatening to interrupt testing, or demanding furniture be rearranged — that prevent the district from conducting valid evaluations. The law gives districts the right to assess, and courts will enforce that right. If you have safety concerns about the assessment environment, raise them early and work collaboratively with the district.
If your child needs a nonpublic school placement, you must prove the public option is insufficient. The IEP team is not required to grant your preference for a specific school. To win a nonpublic school placement, you must present evidence — typically from independent experts — that the public school program cannot meet your child's unique needs. General concerns and parental belief, without supporting evidence, are not sufficient.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of Chino Valley on all four issues. Here is what the evidence showed:

Pica behaviors were addressed by the proposed program. The IEP services offered — including chewable or edible substitutes, a low student-to-teacher ratio, and constant adult supervision — were the same supports contained in the student's last agreed-upon IEP from her prior district. Parents offered no witness or evidence to show these supports were inadequate. The ALJ also noted that the severity of the student's pica behaviors was not nearly as serious as parents had portrayed, and found credible evidence that the ECE 4 Autism director had coached the parents to exaggerate the student's symptoms to support placement at her school.
Playground safety concerns were not substantiated. Parents raised concerns that the student could not be kept safe during outdoor play, but offered no specific evidence about what additional safety measures would be needed or how Chino Valley's program failed to provide them. The offer included additional adult support during unstructured time and positive behavioral interventions identical to those in the prior IEP.
Elopement concerns did not make the placement inappropriate. The student had eloped approximately five times over 21 school days at her prior placement — not from campus, but from classrooms or designated areas. The ALJ found this was not an unusually severe elopement pattern for a student with autism. The Liberty campus was fully fenced, the gate nearest the special day classroom remained locked during school hours, and all students were supervised by adults at all times. The parents' claim that an unlocked gate posed a danger was not supported — that gate was near the bus drop-off area, far from the special day classroom.
Chino Valley was entitled to assess the student without parental conditions. The district proposed a comprehensive reassessment in July 2020, which the parents partially signed but then blocked by refusing in-person testing. The parents demanded that both parents, the student's uncle, and a sibling be present during assessments, threatened to interrupt testing if they felt it was unsafe, and asked that sanitizing products be removed from the room and a barricade placed at the door. The ALJ found these conditions would invalidate standardized test results and were unreasonable. The district demonstrated, through testimony from a school psychologist, occupational therapist, speech-language pathologist, and school nurse, that all required assessments must be conducted in person.

What Was Ordered

Chino Valley is entitled to assess the student under the July 7, 2020 assessment plan. The 60-day timeline to complete assessments began on the date of the decision (February 4, 2021).
Chino Valley must notify parents within 10 business days of the dates, times, and locations for assessments.
If the student is ill and cannot attend an assessment, parents must promptly notify the district and provide documentation from a qualified medical provider. Rescheduled assessments must occur within 30 days of the original proposed dates.
Parents must complete and return any documents requested as part of the assessments, such as rating scales and questionnaires.
Parents must comply with Chino Valley's assessment parameters, including allowing assessors to test and observe the student outside of the parents' presence and without parental interference.
Any delay caused by the parents' failure to produce the student for assessment will toll the 60-day deadline, and the district will not be required to provide special education services until parents comply.
All three of the parents' FAPE claims were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Coordinating with a private school to reject a public school offer can backfire badly. The ALJ gave significant weight to evidence that the ECE 4 Autism director coached the parents on what to say and which safety concerns to raise — before Chino Valley had even made an offer. This conduct damaged the parents' credibility throughout the hearing. If you prefer a specific placement, make sure your concerns are genuine and based on your child's actual documented needs, not scripted by a provider who stands to financially benefit.
You must give the proposed public placement a real chance. The parents refused to enroll their daughter at Liberty before ever visiting the campus or speaking with any staff. Courts and ALJs look at whether the district's offer was appropriate — not whether parents liked it. Rejecting a placement sight-unseen, without evidence it was inadequate, will almost always hurt your case.
"It might not be safe" is not enough — you need evidence. Parents repeatedly raised safety concerns about pica, elopement, and the playground without offering any expert testimony, independent assessments, or specific evidence showing how the program fell short. If your child has genuine safety needs, document them thoroughly and bring in qualified witnesses who can explain what additional supports are required and why.
You cannot block a legally required assessment with unreasonable conditions. Once you sign an assessment consent form, you cannot then impose conditions — like requiring that multiple family members be present, threatening to interrupt testing, or demanding furniture be rearranged — that prevent the district from conducting valid evaluations. The law gives districts the right to assess, and courts will enforce that right. If you have safety concerns about the assessment environment, raise them early and work collaboratively with the district.
If your child needs a nonpublic school placement, you must prove the public option is insufficient. The IEP team is not required to grant your preference for a specific school. To win a nonpublic school placement, you must present evidence — typically from independent experts — that the public school program cannot meet your child's unique needs. General concerns and parental belief, without supporting evidence, are not sufficient.