Long Beach Failed to Fund or File After Parent Requested Four Independent Evaluations

A Long Beach parent of a nine-year-old student with autism, specific learning disability, and speech-language impairment requested independent educational evaluations in vision therapy, central auditory processing, occupational therapy, and psychoeducation. Long Beach refused to fund the parent's chosen vision therapist due to cost criteria, but then failed to file for due process to resolve the dispute — and completely ignored the other three evaluation requests. The ALJ issued a mixed ruling: Long Beach's cost criteria were reasonable, but its failure to fund or file in a timely manner was a FAPE denial, and the district's total silence on three IEE requests waived its right to contest them.

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old second grader with autism, specific learning disability, and speech-language impairment enrolled in Long Beach Unified School District. After Long Beach completed a triennial psychoeducational assessment in October 2019, the parent disagreed with several conclusions — particularly around vision processing — and began researching additional support. She identified a developmental optometrist, Dr. Stephey, and in August 2020 formally requested that Long Beach fund an independent vision therapy evaluation with him. Long Beach agreed in principle to fund a vision evaluation but insisted the evaluator meet its SELPA cost criteria (capped at $300–$500 for visual assessments). Dr. Stephey's fees ranged from $1,400–$1,800, which far exceeded that cap. The parties negotiated through October 2020, reached a final impasse, and then Long Beach did nothing — it neither funded the evaluation with Dr. Stephey nor filed a due process complaint to defend its position.

Separately, on August 17, 2020, the parent sent Long Beach an email requesting three additional independent evaluations — in central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), occupational therapy (OT), and psychoeducation. The parties stipulated at hearing that Long Beach never responded to that email in any way, from August 2020 through the date the complaint was filed. The parent filed for due process in February 2021, seeking all four independent evaluations at public expense.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to file for due process after reaching an impasse on the vision IEE (Issue 1b — District lost). Under federal law, when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation (IEE), the district must either fund it or file for due process to defend its own assessment — without unnecessary delay. Long Beach agreed to fund a vision evaluation within its cost criteria but never resolved the dispute when the parent refused to choose a different evaluator. After the parties reached a final impasse in October 2020, Long Beach simply did nothing for approximately eight months. The ALJ found this was an unnecessary delay that waived Long Beach's right to contest the IEE and denied the parent meaningful participation in developing her son's IEP.
Completely ignored three IEE requests for CAPD, OT, and psychoeducation (Issue 2 — District lost). Long Beach never responded to the parent's August 17, 2020 written request — no prior written notice, no funding offer, no due process filing, nothing. The ALJ found this silence was a procedural FAPE violation that significantly impeded the parent's ability to participate in IEP development. Long Beach's failure to respond also waived its right to contest the requests.
Mistakenly believed it had no obligation to file for due process (both issues). Long Beach's defense — that offering to fund an evaluation within its cost criteria satisfied its "fund or file" obligation — was rejected. The ALJ clarified that merely offering a list of compliant evaluators does not constitute "ensuring" an IEE at public expense. Once the parties reached an impasse, the only lawful options were to fund the parent's chosen evaluator or file for due process.

Note — District Won One Issue: Long Beach's cost criteria for vision assessments were found to be reasonable. The SELPA policy was developed through an annual review process comparing rates across Southern California, excluding high and low outliers, and multiple qualified optometrists were available within the cost cap. The parent never contacted any of the alternative providers offered by the district, and presented no evidence that Dr. Stephey had unique qualifications justifying the higher cost. The ALJ found Long Beach's cost criteria did not improperly restrict the parent's IEE rights.

What Was Ordered

Independent vision therapy evaluation: Student had until August 15, 2021 to notify Long Beach in writing of a chosen optometrist who meets SELPA criteria, including the $500 cost cap. The parent retained the right to demonstrate unique circumstances justifying an evaluator exceeding the criteria. Failure to notify Long Beach by the deadline would waive the right to the evaluation at public expense.
Independent evaluations in central auditory processing, occupational therapy, and psychoeducation: Long Beach was ordered to fund all three evaluations, consistent with its SELPA criteria. Student was required to provide the names of qualified evaluators in each area to Long Beach by August 15, 2021.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Fund or file" is not optional — and silence is never acceptable. When you request an IEE, the district must either pay for it or file for due process — there is no third option. If a district simply ignores your written IEE request, that silence is itself a FAPE violation and can waive the district's right to oppose your request entirely. Put your IEE requests in writing, keep copies, and track whether the district responds within a reasonable time.
Districts can set cost limits on IEEs — but those limits must be genuinely reasonable. A district is allowed to cap what it will pay for an independent evaluator, as long as enough qualified evaluators in your area fall within that range. If you believe the cap is unreasonably low and prevents you from accessing a qualified evaluator, gather evidence showing that no qualified evaluator in your area can do the work within the cost limit.
You can request IEEs in multiple areas from a single assessment. If you disagree with a district's evaluation because it failed to assess your child in specific areas (such as auditory processing or occupational therapy), you may have the right to request separate IEEs to fill those gaps — even if the district only conducted one overarching psychoeducational assessment. The label of the district's test matters less than whether all areas of suspected disability were properly assessed.
Once you reach an impasse, the clock is ticking for the district. If negotiations over an IEE break down, the district must act quickly — either fund the evaluation or file for due process. A district that waits months after an impasse without explanation risks waiving its right to contest your IEE request. Document the date you believe negotiations have ended so you have a clear record of when the district's deadline began.
Your right to an IEE supports your right to participate in IEP meetings. Courts and hearing officers recognize that IEEs are not just about getting another opinion — they give parents access to independent experts who can help them understand their child's needs and advocate effectively at IEP meetings. If a district's delay in providing an IEE prevents you from having that expert voice at the table, that delay can itself constitute a denial of your procedural rights under the IDEA.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to file for due process after reaching an impasse on the vision IEE (Issue 1b — District lost). Under federal law, when a parent requests an independent educational evaluation (IEE), the district must either fund it or file for due process to defend its own assessment — without unnecessary delay. Long Beach agreed to fund a vision evaluation within its cost criteria but never resolved the dispute when the parent refused to choose a different evaluator. After the parties reached a final impasse in October 2020, Long Beach simply did nothing for approximately eight months. The ALJ found this was an unnecessary delay that waived Long Beach's right to contest the IEE and denied the parent meaningful participation in developing her son's IEP.
Completely ignored three IEE requests for CAPD, OT, and psychoeducation (Issue 2 — District lost). Long Beach never responded to the parent's August 17, 2020 written request — no prior written notice, no funding offer, no due process filing, nothing. The ALJ found this silence was a procedural FAPE violation that significantly impeded the parent's ability to participate in IEP development. Long Beach's failure to respond also waived its right to contest the requests.
Mistakenly believed it had no obligation to file for due process (both issues). Long Beach's defense — that offering to fund an evaluation within its cost criteria satisfied its "fund or file" obligation — was rejected. The ALJ clarified that merely offering a list of compliant evaluators does not constitute "ensuring" an IEE at public expense. Once the parties reached an impasse, the only lawful options were to fund the parent's chosen evaluator or file for due process.

What Was Ordered

Independent vision therapy evaluation: Student had until August 15, 2021 to notify Long Beach in writing of a chosen optometrist who meets SELPA criteria, including the $500 cost cap. The parent retained the right to demonstrate unique circumstances justifying an evaluator exceeding the criteria. Failure to notify Long Beach by the deadline would waive the right to the evaluation at public expense.
Independent evaluations in central auditory processing, occupational therapy, and psychoeducation: Long Beach was ordered to fund all three evaluations, consistent with its SELPA criteria. Student was required to provide the names of qualified evaluators in each area to Long Beach by August 15, 2021.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Fund or file" is not optional — and silence is never acceptable. When you request an IEE, the district must either pay for it or file for due process — there is no third option. If a district simply ignores your written IEE request, that silence is itself a FAPE violation and can waive the district's right to oppose your request entirely. Put your IEE requests in writing, keep copies, and track whether the district responds within a reasonable time.
Districts can set cost limits on IEEs — but those limits must be genuinely reasonable. A district is allowed to cap what it will pay for an independent evaluator, as long as enough qualified evaluators in your area fall within that range. If you believe the cap is unreasonably low and prevents you from accessing a qualified evaluator, gather evidence showing that no qualified evaluator in your area can do the work within the cost limit.
You can request IEEs in multiple areas from a single assessment. If you disagree with a district's evaluation because it failed to assess your child in specific areas (such as auditory processing or occupational therapy), you may have the right to request separate IEEs to fill those gaps — even if the district only conducted one overarching psychoeducational assessment. The label of the district's test matters less than whether all areas of suspected disability were properly assessed.
Once you reach an impasse, the clock is ticking for the district. If negotiations over an IEE break down, the district must act quickly — either fund the evaluation or file for due process. A district that waits months after an impasse without explanation risks waiving its right to contest your IEE request. Document the date you believe negotiations have ended so you have a clear record of when the district's deadline began.
Your right to an IEE supports your right to participate in IEP meetings. Courts and hearing officers recognize that IEEs are not just about getting another opinion — they give parents access to independent experts who can help them understand their child's needs and advocate effectively at IEP meetings. If a district's delay in providing an IEE prevents you from having that expert voice at the table, that delay can itself constitute a denial of your procedural rights under the IDEA.