District Wins: Chino Valley's Program for Autism Student with Pica and Elopement Was Adequate

An eight-year-old student with autism whose parents sought placement at a private nonpublic school lost her due process claims against Chino Valley Unified School District. The ALJ found Chino Valley's moderate-to-severe special day class adequately addressed the student's pica behaviors, playground safety, and elopement concerns. The district also won the right to conduct comprehensive in-person assessments over the parents' objections and conditions.

What Happened

A family moved into the Chino Valley Unified School District in November 2019 with their eight-year-old daughter, who had autism and significant behavioral challenges including pica (mouthing and ingesting non-edible items), elopement tendencies, and difficulty during unstructured time like recess. Before the family even moved, the parents had already been working with the director of ECE 4 Autism — a private nonpublic school in Orange, California — to secure that specific placement. The parents rejected Chino Valley's offer of a moderate-to-severe special day class at Liberty Elementary (run through San Bernardino County) without ever visiting the campus or speaking with staff. The student never attended school in Chino Valley during the entire 2019–2020 school year due to the placement dispute.

The parents filed a due process complaint alleging Chino Valley's program failed to address the student's pica disorder, playground safety, and elopement risks. Chino Valley filed a cross-complaint seeking authorization to conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the student, which the parents had consented to in writing but then refused to allow in person — citing COVID-19 concerns and demanding that both parents, an uncle, and a sibling be present in the assessment room, with the right to interrupt testing. The ALJ consolidated both cases and heard testimony over three days in December 2020.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of Chino Valley on all four issues. Key findings included:

Pica concerns were not supported by evidence. The student's pica behaviors — mouthing and occasionally ingesting non-edible items — were addressed in Chino Valley's offer through a low student-to-staff ratio, constant supervision, chewable/edible substitute materials, and additional adult support during unstructured times. The parents presented no expert testimony or evidence that Chino Valley's program was inadequate to manage these behaviors. The ALJ also found that the parents had been coached by the ECE 4 Autism director to exaggerate the severity of Student's pica behaviors to Chino Valley, including claiming Student had vomited from eating objects at school — a claim unsupported by any evidence at hearing.
Playground safety concerns were speculative. The ALJ found that Chino Valley's offer — which included positive behavior interventions, visual schedules, reinforcement systems, self-regulation instruction, and constant adult supervision — was reasonably calculated to keep the student safe during outdoor play. No witness testified that Chino Valley's program was specifically inadequate in this area, and the parents' concerns were shaped in part by the ECE 4 Autism director's pre-move advice to identify safety problems with any Chino Valley campus.
Elopement concerns were not supported by the record. The student's prior IEP showed approximately five elopement incidents over 21 school days — wandering within campus, not escaping school grounds. The ALJ found that Liberty's fenced campus, locked gates near the special day classroom, low staff ratios, and trained staff were adequate. The parents' claim that an unlocked gate near the parking lot posed a danger was undermined by evidence that the gate was far from the special day classroom and playground, and that no bus or road abutted that area.
Parents' conditions for assessment were unreasonable. Chino Valley proved it needed in-person assessments to validly measure the student's intellectual development, adaptive behavior, speech/language, motor skills, social-emotional functioning, and health. The ALJ found that demanding family members and an uncle be present in the assessment room — with the right to interrupt testing — would invalidate standardized protocols and was not legally required. The district's COVID safety protocols (masks, sanitizing, temperature checks) were found adequate.

What Was Ordered

Chino Valley is authorized to assess the student pursuant to the July 7, 2020 assessment plan without parental conditions or limitations. The 60-day assessment window begins on the date of the decision (February 4, 2021).
Chino Valley must notify parents within 10 business days of the scheduled assessment dates, times, and locations.
If the student cannot attend due to illness, parents must promptly notify the district with signed documentation from a medical provider, and must cooperate in rescheduling within 30 days of the original dates.
Parents must timely complete and return all assessment-related documents, including rating scales and questionnaires.
Parents must comply with all assessment parameters set by Chino Valley, including allowing assessors to test and observe the student outside the presence of parents and without interference.
Any delay caused by parental non-compliance will toll the 60-day timeline, and Chino Valley will not be obligated to provide services until parents comply.
All of the student's FAPE-related claims (Issues 1–3) were denied. No compensatory education, placement at ECE 4 Autism, or other relief was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Coordinating with a private school to influence your IEP process can seriously backfire. The ALJ gave significant weight to evidence that the parents were coached by the ECE 4 Autism director to describe their child's behaviors as more severe than documented and to criticize any Chino Valley placement before even seeing it. This coaching was treated as evidence undermining the parents' credibility throughout the decision.
Refusing to visit or try a district-offered placement weakens your case. The parents rejected Liberty Elementary without touring it, speaking to the teacher, or giving it any chance to demonstrate its appropriateness. Courts and ALJs focus on whether the district's proposed program is adequate — not whether parents prefer a different school.
You have the right to observe an assessment — but not to control it. Parents may request to observe, and some districts accommodate this through one-way mirrors or adjacent rooms. However, demanding that multiple family members sit in the room and reserving the right to interrupt testing is not a legally protected condition, and will likely be found unreasonable.
Vague safety concerns are not enough to prove a FAPE denial. Simply expressing worry that "something bad could happen" at a placement is not sufficient evidence. Parents must present specific testimony or expert evidence showing how and why the district's program fails to address a child's documented needs.
Assessments can be ordered even over parental objection. When a district demonstrates that a reassessment is genuinely needed and has taken reasonable steps to address parental safety concerns, an ALJ can authorize assessments to proceed without parental consent — and can toll services until parents cooperate.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of Chino Valley on all four issues. Key findings included:

Pica concerns were not supported by evidence. The student's pica behaviors — mouthing and occasionally ingesting non-edible items — were addressed in Chino Valley's offer through a low student-to-staff ratio, constant supervision, chewable/edible substitute materials, and additional adult support during unstructured times. The parents presented no expert testimony or evidence that Chino Valley's program was inadequate to manage these behaviors. The ALJ also found that the parents had been coached by the ECE 4 Autism director to exaggerate the severity of Student's pica behaviors to Chino Valley, including claiming Student had vomited from eating objects at school — a claim unsupported by any evidence at hearing.
Playground safety concerns were speculative. The ALJ found that Chino Valley's offer — which included positive behavior interventions, visual schedules, reinforcement systems, self-regulation instruction, and constant adult supervision — was reasonably calculated to keep the student safe during outdoor play. No witness testified that Chino Valley's program was specifically inadequate in this area, and the parents' concerns were shaped in part by the ECE 4 Autism director's pre-move advice to identify safety problems with any Chino Valley campus.
Elopement concerns were not supported by the record. The student's prior IEP showed approximately five elopement incidents over 21 school days — wandering within campus, not escaping school grounds. The ALJ found that Liberty's fenced campus, locked gates near the special day classroom, low staff ratios, and trained staff were adequate. The parents' claim that an unlocked gate near the parking lot posed a danger was undermined by evidence that the gate was far from the special day classroom and playground, and that no bus or road abutted that area.
Parents' conditions for assessment were unreasonable. Chino Valley proved it needed in-person assessments to validly measure the student's intellectual development, adaptive behavior, speech/language, motor skills, social-emotional functioning, and health. The ALJ found that demanding family members and an uncle be present in the assessment room — with the right to interrupt testing — would invalidate standardized protocols and was not legally required. The district's COVID safety protocols (masks, sanitizing, temperature checks) were found adequate.

What Was Ordered

Chino Valley is authorized to assess the student pursuant to the July 7, 2020 assessment plan without parental conditions or limitations. The 60-day assessment window begins on the date of the decision (February 4, 2021).
Chino Valley must notify parents within 10 business days of the scheduled assessment dates, times, and locations.
If the student cannot attend due to illness, parents must promptly notify the district with signed documentation from a medical provider, and must cooperate in rescheduling within 30 days of the original dates.
Parents must timely complete and return all assessment-related documents, including rating scales and questionnaires.
Parents must comply with all assessment parameters set by Chino Valley, including allowing assessors to test and observe the student outside the presence of parents and without interference.
Any delay caused by parental non-compliance will toll the 60-day timeline, and Chino Valley will not be obligated to provide services until parents comply.
All of the student's FAPE-related claims (Issues 1–3) were denied. No compensatory education, placement at ECE 4 Autism, or other relief was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Coordinating with a private school to influence your IEP process can seriously backfire. The ALJ gave significant weight to evidence that the parents were coached by the ECE 4 Autism director to describe their child's behaviors as more severe than documented and to criticize any Chino Valley placement before even seeing it. This coaching was treated as evidence undermining the parents' credibility throughout the decision.
Refusing to visit or try a district-offered placement weakens your case. The parents rejected Liberty Elementary without touring it, speaking to the teacher, or giving it any chance to demonstrate its appropriateness. Courts and ALJs focus on whether the district's proposed program is adequate — not whether parents prefer a different school.
You have the right to observe an assessment — but not to control it. Parents may request to observe, and some districts accommodate this through one-way mirrors or adjacent rooms. However, demanding that multiple family members sit in the room and reserving the right to interrupt testing is not a legally protected condition, and will likely be found unreasonable.
Vague safety concerns are not enough to prove a FAPE denial. Simply expressing worry that "something bad could happen" at a placement is not sufficient evidence. Parents must present specific testimony or expert evidence showing how and why the district's program fails to address a child's documented needs.
Assessments can be ordered even over parental objection. When a district demonstrates that a reassessment is genuinely needed and has taken reasonable steps to address parental safety concerns, an ALJ can authorize assessments to proceed without parental consent — and can toll services until parents cooperate.