District Wins: Palos Verdes Assessments and Child Find Obligations Upheld

Parents filed a due process complaint against Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District alleging the district failed its child find duty, conducted inadequate assessments, ignored private evaluations diagnosing autism, and owed reimbursement for a private nonpublic school placement. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all seven issues, finding that the district's assessments were legally sufficient, it had appropriately considered private evaluations, and no denial of FAPE was established. Because no FAPE denial was found, the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the nonpublic school.

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old who had been eligible for special education under the category of other health impairment since first grade, due to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Student was born premature, had a complicated birth history involving possible prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, and experienced delayed developmental milestones. At age 10, a private psychologist diagnosed Student with autism spectrum disorder — a diagnosis the district's own evaluators had previously considered and rejected. Disagreeing with the district's conclusions, Parents unilaterally placed Student at Summit View, a nonpublic school, in November 2018, and largely stopped communicating with the district during that time.

Parents filed a due process complaint in July 2020 raising seven issues: whether the district failed its child find duty going back to 2017; whether it failed to assess Student for autism and ADHD; whether it ignored private evaluations; whether its 2020 assessments were legally insufficient; whether a later eligibility finding of emotional disturbance obligated it to reimburse the nonpublic school costs; whether it failed to conduct requested autism and assistive technology assessments after February 2020; and whether its distance learning program during COVID-19 denied Student a FAPE. A significant preliminary issue arose regarding whether a private tolling agreement signed by the parties in 2019 could extend the two-year statute of limitations back to 2017. The ALJ declined to honor the tolling agreement, finding no binding legal authority permitted it, and limited the claims to the two-year period beginning July 22, 2018.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all seven issues. On child find, the district had already identified Student and offered eligibility in first grade — satisfying its obligation. On assessment adequacy, the ALJ found the district's academic, occupational therapy, speech and language, and psychoeducational assessments were all legally sufficient: conducted by qualified professionals, using multiple tools, administered according to publisher instructions, and documented in well-organized reports provided to Parents. Regarding autism specifically, the district's school psychologist found no behaviors characteristic of autism during the 2019 evaluation — Student's social skills were rated in the average range, and no deficits in verbal or nonverbal communication were observed — so the district had no obligation to assess further for autism before Parents formally requested it.

On the private evaluations, the ALJ found the district had meaningfully considered the private psychologist's diagnosis of autism and a child neurologist's supporting letter, even though it was not required to adopt their recommendations. The district invited the private evaluator to participate in three IEP team meetings and reviewed the full report before the September 2018 meeting. The district's disagreement with the private conclusions was not a violation of the law. On reimbursement, because the ALJ found no FAPE denial at any point during the statutory period, there was no legal basis to order reimbursement for the nonpublic school placement. The distance learning claim failed because Student was attending the private school during the relevant period and did not re-enroll in a district school until after the complaint was filed.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's claims for relief were denied.
The district was not ordered to reimburse Parents for the cost of the nonpublic school placement.
No compensatory services, additional assessments, or placement changes were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A private diagnosis of autism does not automatically require the district to change a child's eligibility category. The district is required to consider a private evaluation but is not required to adopt it. If you believe the district's eligibility determination is wrong, be prepared to challenge the district's own assessment data directly — showing specific errors or omissions in how the evaluation was conducted.
Tolling agreements with districts may not be enforceable at OAH. This case established that the two-year statute of limitations in special education cases has only two narrow exceptions written into law: district misrepresentation and withholding of required information. A private agreement between parents and a district to extend the deadline back further is not binding on OAH, which means older claims may be time-barred even if the district agreed in writing to allow them.
Reimbursement for private school placement requires first proving a FAPE denial. Parents who place their child in a private school hoping to recover costs must show the district's program was legally inadequate — not just that a private placement was better or more appropriate in their view. Without a FAPE denial finding, there is no legal basis for reimbursement, regardless of cost.
Delaying consent to an assessment plan can work against you. In this case, Parents waited over four months to consent to one assessment plan and nearly three months to consent to another. Those delays directly impacted the district's legal timelines and undermined claims that the district was dragging its feet. When a district offers an assessment, respond promptly — and document any concerns about the plan in writing before consenting.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's claims for relief were denied.
The district was not ordered to reimburse Parents for the cost of the nonpublic school placement.
No compensatory services, additional assessments, or placement changes were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A private diagnosis of autism does not automatically require the district to change a child's eligibility category. The district is required to consider a private evaluation but is not required to adopt it. If you believe the district's eligibility determination is wrong, be prepared to challenge the district's own assessment data directly — showing specific errors or omissions in how the evaluation was conducted.
Tolling agreements with districts may not be enforceable at OAH. This case established that the two-year statute of limitations in special education cases has only two narrow exceptions written into law: district misrepresentation and withholding of required information. A private agreement between parents and a district to extend the deadline back further is not binding on OAH, which means older claims may be time-barred even if the district agreed in writing to allow them.
Reimbursement for private school placement requires first proving a FAPE denial. Parents who place their child in a private school hoping to recover costs must show the district's program was legally inadequate — not just that a private placement was better or more appropriate in their view. Without a FAPE denial finding, there is no legal basis for reimbursement, regardless of cost.
Delaying consent to an assessment plan can work against you. In this case, Parents waited over four months to consent to one assessment plan and nearly three months to consent to another. Those delays directly impacted the district's legal timelines and undermined claims that the district was dragging its feet. When a district offers an assessment, respond promptly — and document any concerns about the plan in writing before consenting.