District Must Offer Transition Plan in Writing: Cherry Gulch Teen Gets Partial Win

What Happened

The student is a 15-year-old boy who was first found eligible for special education under the Other Health Impairment (OHI) category in 2011 while attending elementary school in the Del Mar Union School District. He had a history of escalating behavioral and social-emotional challenges, including behavior that endangered himself, his family, and school staff. His parents withdrew him from Del Mar in May 2017 and privately placed him — entirely at their own expense — first at NewBridge School in Poway, and later at Cherry Gulch Residential Therapeutic Boarding School in Emmett, Idaho, starting in October 2019. Neither placement was arranged with San Dieguito's knowledge or consent, and the parents never gave San Dieguito written notice of the placements or of any intent to seek tuition reimbursement. Del Mar incorrectly marked the student as "exited" from special education in its database, compounding the confusion about his status.

San Dieguito first learned the student existed in May 2020, when the parents filed a due process complaint. The district responded promptly by issuing an assessment plan, providing Parents' Rights documentation, and holding an IEP meeting. Over the following months — complicated by COVID-19 closures and Cherry Gulch's refusal to provide assessment data or access to the student — San Dieguito completed a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment. In April 2021, the IEP team found the student eligible and offered placement at New Haven, a therapeutic nonpublic school, with wrap-around services. The parents objected, arguing the student was not yet ready to leave Cherry Gulch and needed a formal step-down program at the affiliated Novitas school before any community transition. The parents sought reimbursement for all Cherry Gulch tuition, transportation, and vision therapy dating back years. The ALJ found the district responsible for only one narrow FAPE denial: the April 2, 2021 IEP did not include a written transition plan defining how the student would move from Cherry Gulch to New Haven before the end of the school year on June 11, 2021.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on 11 of 12 issues and found only one FAPE violation.

Issue 10 — Placement (April 2 to June 11, 2021): DISTRICT LOST (partially). The April 2, 2021 IEP offered New Haven nonpublic school with a start date of April 2, 2021. At that moment, the student was still at Cherry Gulch and was not emotionally ready to leave immediately. Cherry Gulch's own therapist had told the district the student would be ready to transition by the end of summer 2021, not spring. The IEP team verbally offered wrap-around transition support but never put those transition specifics in writing. Because the written IEP had no transition plan defining how the step-down from residential care would happen, it was an incomplete and therefore inappropriate placement offer for the remaining weeks of the school year. A written offer exists precisely to give parents a clear, enforceable record — verbal assurances do not satisfy that requirement.

All other issues: DISTRICT PREVAILED. The ALJ rejected the parents' broader claims for the following reasons:

• Child Find (Issue 1): A district's child find duty applies to private schools within its geographic boundaries. San Dieguito had no obligation to search for a student placed by parents in a private school in Idaho. Additionally, because the student had already been found eligible for special education, child find — which targets unidentified children — did not apply at all.
• Mandated Information (Issue 2): Once the district learned of the student in May 2020, it immediately provided Parents' Rights documentation. No earlier duty existed.
• Timely Assessments (Issue 3): San Dieguito had no duty to assess the student before May 2020. It initiated a comprehensive assessment as soon as it learned of him.
• Sensory and Assistive Technology Assessment (Issue 4): Cherry Gulch refused to return rating scales, blocked the assessment team's access to the student, and did not provide required data. The district made reasonable efforts under very difficult circumstances.
• COVID-19 Assessment Accommodations (Issue 5): Parents offered to pay travel costs for the assessment team to fly to Idaho, but accepting that offer would have been an impermissible gift to a public agency. The district correctly declined.
• Eligibility (Issue 6): The district's November 2020 eligibility determination and later January 2021 re-assessment process were appropriate.
• Annual IEP Meetings (Issue 7): No duty existed before May 2020; meetings held after that date were timely.
• IEP Team Composition (Issue 8): The April 2, 2021 IEP team was properly constituted.
• Present Levels (Issue 9): The April 2, 2021 IEP contained appropriate present levels of performance.
• IEP Goals (Issue 11): The 13 goals offered were appropriate. Student's expert never met or assessed the student and could not credibly establish that additional goals in OT, vision, sensory, or behavior were required.
• Services and Supports (Issue 12): The offer of embedded mental health services at New Haven, wrap-around counseling, and an assistive technology consult was appropriate. The student had earned a 3.4 GPA at Cherry Gulch without any special education services, which undermined claims that he urgently needed OT, vision therapy, or assistive technology.

What Was Ordered

1. Tuition and room and board reimbursement: San Dieguito must reimburse parents for educationally related expenses charged by Cherry Gulch — specifically tuition, educational therapy, and room and board — from April 2, 2021 through June 11, 2021 only. Miscellaneous charges (ski passes, sundry accounts, computer purchases, etc.) are excluded.
2. Transportation reimbursement: San Dieguito must reimburse parents $405.80 for the student's round-trip travel between Idaho and California on April 28/May 2, 2021, and one-way travel on June 9, 2021.
3. Documentation requirement: Parents must submit detailed invoices and proof of payment to San Dieguito within 30 days of the decision date (i.e., by approximately February 2, 2022).
4. Payment timeline: San Dieguito must pay within 45 business days of receiving the documentation.
5. All other relief denied: Requests for reimbursement of all prior Cherry Gulch tuition, transportation before April 2, 2021, vision therapy, Novitas tuition, and district staff training on child find were all denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Put your transition plan in writing — and demand the district do the same. The one thing the district lost was failing to write down how the student would transition from residential care to the new placement. If an IEP team verbally promises transition supports, wraparound services, or a phased entry plan, insist those specifics appear in the written IEP document. Verbal promises are not enforceable and will not protect your child.

2. If you privately place your child out of district or out of state, notify the district in writing immediately — especially if you want reimbursement. The parents here never gave San Dieguito written notice of Cherry Gulch placement or of their intent to seek reimbursement. Federal law requires that notice for reimbursement claims to have any chance of success. Silence until a due process filing will almost certainly bar most of your claims.

3. Child find does not follow your child across state lines. A school district is only legally required to look for eligible children within its own geographic boundaries. If your child is placed in a private school in another state, do not assume your home district will proactively reach out — you must contact them directly.

4. Cherry Gulch's refusal to cooperate with assessors hurt the student's case, not the district's. When a private school blocks access to a student or refuses to return assessment materials, courts and ALJs will excuse the public school from completing that portion of the assessment. If your child is in a private placement and you want the public school to assess them, actively facilitate access — require cooperation in writing as part of your private placement agreement if possible.

5. An expert who has never met your child carries very little weight. Two of the student's experts testified based solely on record review, having never met the student, his family, or his therapists. The ALJ repeatedly discounted their opinions for that reason. If you hire an independent expert to support your case, arrange for them to actually observe, interview, or assess your child before the hearing.