District Prevails on All Issues in ADHD/Autism Student's IEP Challenge

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old with ADHD, anxiety disorder, and a suspected autism spectrum diagnosis who had attended Conejo Valley Unified School District schools through fourth grade. In January 2019, Student received a Section 504 accommodation plan. For fifth grade, Parents disenrolled Student and placed him at Bridges Academy, a private school not certified by the California Department of Education as a nonpublic school. The parties had previously litigated a due process case, which ended in a May 2020 settlement agreement. As part of that agreement, Student was treated as a privately placed general education student through December 31, 2020.

In September 2020, Parents asked the district to reassess Student for special education eligibility. Following a comprehensive psychoeducational assessment, the district convened an IEP team meeting on December 14, 2020, and found Student eligible under the categories of Other Health Impairment (ADHD) and Emotional Disturbance (anxiety). Parents consented to eligibility but disagreed with the placement and services offered — a combination of regular education classes with some push-in specialized academic instruction and a small special education class totaling 88 minutes per week at the local public middle school. Parents wanted Student to remain at Bridges Academy and filed for due process. The district also filed its own case seeking to defend its psychoeducational assessment against Parents' demand for an independent educational evaluation at public expense. The cases were consolidated.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on all nine issues. On Issue 1 (failure to timely provide an assessment plan for central auditory processing and recreational therapy), the ALJ found Student had waived this procedural claim in the May 2020 settlement agreement, which released claims through December 31, 2020 except for disagreements about assessment results and IEP content. On Issue 2 (failure to provide education records), Student presented no evidence at hearing that records were requested, what was missing, or how any gap significantly impeded Parents' participation.

On the IEP itself, the ALJ found the district's December 14, 2020 IEP was legally adequate in every respect challenged. The emergency services provision describing how services would be delivered in a disaster or school closure was sufficient under the new California law requiring such provisions. The ALJ found no evidence the district ignored Parents' placement concerns at the IEP meeting — Parents attended and participated actively, but raised no specific objections to the placement offer during the meeting. The prior written notice about the proposed placement change was found to be included within the IEP document itself.

On assessments, the ALJ found the district was not required to conduct a functional behavior assessment because Student's observed behaviors — hand-sniffing related to anxiety and occasional inattention — did not rise to the level requiring one, and Student's own experts could not say one was needed. The district was also not required to separately assess recreational therapy needs or central auditory processing, as the evidence did not establish those were areas of suspected disability requiring formal assessment. The district's goals in writing, social-emotional functioning, and academic study skills were found to be well-supported by assessment data and reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit. The offered placement at the local public middle school — mostly general education with modest special education support — was found to be the least restrictive appropriate environment given Student's above-average cognitive abilities and prior success in regular classes. Student did not qualify for extended school year services because his history showed no significant regression over summer breaks. Finally, the district's psychoeducational assessment was found to be legally compliant, so Student was not entitled to an independent evaluation at public expense.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety. Conejo Valley Unified School District prevailed on all nine issues, including its own affirmative claim that its psychoeducational assessment was legally sufficient.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Settlement agreements can permanently waive your right to raise procedural claims. The parents in this case were barred from arguing the district was late in providing an assessment plan because their prior settlement agreement released claims through December 31, 2020. Before signing any settlement, carefully review what future rights you may be giving up — and make sure you understand the scope of the waiver clause.

2. You must present evidence at hearing — not just allegations. Student lost the records-request issue entirely because no evidence was introduced at hearing: no testimony that records were requested, no showing of what was missing, and no explanation of how any gap impacted parental participation. Filing a due process claim is just the beginning — you must be prepared to prove each issue with documents and testimony.

3. Keeping your child in a private school does not automatically entitle you to public funding or a private school placement in the IEP. The district was permitted to offer a public school placement even though Parents preferred Bridges Academy. The law requires the district to offer an appropriate program, not the program parents prefer — and a district's placement offer can prevail even if a private setting might provide greater benefit.

4. Prior written notice requirements can be satisfied within the IEP document itself. Parents argued they were entitled to a separate prior written notice before the district implemented a placement change. The ALJ found the IEP document itself contained all required elements. Parents should carefully read the entire IEP packet — including pages that may contain required legal notices — before assuming a notice is missing.