Sequoia USD Failed Child Find, Predetermined Placement for Student with Emotional Disturbance

A high-achieving 12th grader with severe depression and anxiety was denied a free appropriate public education when Sequoia Union High School District ignored warning signs of disability for months and then predetermined her placement at a residential treatment center without meaningful parental input. The ALJ found the district violated its child find duty starting in May 2020, developed an inadequate IEP, and repeatedly offered a single inappropriate placement despite parents' well-documented concerns. The family was awarded over $79,000 in reimbursement for private residential treatment, an independent assessment, and travel costs.

What Happened

The student was a high-achieving 10th grader at Woodside High School who excelled academically — earning straight A's in mostly advanced placement courses — when she began experiencing severe depression, anxiety, and self-harm in spring 2020. In May 2020, her mother emailed three of her teachers and her school counselor to explain that the student had serious mental health problems and was considering inpatient treatment. The teachers offered leniency on assignments, but no one at the school suggested a special education evaluation or told the family that special education could address mental health needs. The family did not know that special education covered anything other than physical or learning disabilities. The student stopped attending classes entirely, and the district did nothing to evaluate her.

When the student returned for 11th grade in August 2020, her mental health deteriorated further. She attempted suicide in September 2020 and was placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. The district created a 504 Plan but still did not offer a special education assessment. Only after the parents independently requested one in late September 2020 did the district begin the process — months after it was legally required to act. The district ultimately found the student eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance in December 2020 and held an initial IEP meeting. However, the IEP it developed had a vague, unmeasurable goal, inadequate therapy services, and offered only one placement option — Diamond Ranch Academy, a behavioral residential treatment center — without giving parents any meaningful information about it or the opportunity to weigh in. Parents had serious concerns about the behavioral therapy model at Diamond Ranch Academy and, on the advice of the student's private therapist and independent evaluator, placed the student at New Haven residential treatment center at their own expense. The district continued to insist on Diamond Ranch Academy at two subsequent IEP meetings, even as the student made significant progress at New Haven and then transitioned to a step-down program.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed its child find duty (May 2020 – October 2020). When parents emailed teachers and the school counselor in May 2020 describing the student's severe depression, anxiety, and inability to attend school, the district was legally required to refer her for a special education assessment. Instead, it did nothing. Even after the student attempted suicide in September 2020, the district held a 504 meeting without ever discussing special education. The district's failure to act on clear notice of a potential disability was a procedural violation that caused a real loss of educational opportunity.
Wrote an unmeasurable IEP goal. The student's initial December 2020 IEP contained only one social-emotional goal. That goal lacked a meaningful baseline — no one on the IEP team could determine how often the student was actually attending school, making it impossible to know whether a target of "50 percent attendance" represented any improvement at all. The district's own school psychologist could not explain the baseline. The district argued it would fix the goal at a 30-day review, but the ALJ held the district was required to develop an appropriate goal from the start.
Offered insufficient therapy services. The IEP offered 60 minutes per week of individual counseling and 120 minutes per week of group counseling. Both the student's private therapist at the wilderness program (who had worked with her for three months) and the independent psychologist who evaluated her recommended two to three hours per week of individual therapy, daily group therapy, and weekly family therapy. The district's witnesses who defended the lower amounts had never evaluated or treated the student. The experts who had direct knowledge of the student were given greater weight.
Predetermined placement at Diamond Ranch Academy. Before the December 2020 IEP meeting even took place, the district's lead team had already decided it would offer Diamond Ranch Academy as the only placement option. The district confirmed Diamond Ranch had a spot available and reached out to the facility's liaison before the IEP was developed. At the meeting itself, the placement was announced in the last few minutes with no information provided about the program, no representative from Diamond Ranch present, and no discussion of any alternative residential treatment centers. This is predetermination — a serious procedural violation that strips parents of their right to participate meaningfully in placement decisions.
Refused to reconsider placement despite parent objections. After the meeting, parents immediately raised detailed concerns about Diamond Ranch Academy's behavioral therapy model and provided letters from three private professionals recommending a different facility. The district responded with a form letter disagreeing, did not research any alternative programs, and did not offer another IEP meeting to discuss the concerns. At the February 2021 follow-up IEP meeting, the district still offered only Diamond Ranch Academy, without gathering any updated information about how the student was doing at New Haven, where she had been for three weeks.
Continued to offer an inappropriate placement in May 2021. At the May 2021 IEP meeting, the district again proposed Diamond Ranch Academy — even though the student had been at New Haven for five months and made significant progress. Diamond Ranch Academy had no updated information about the student and had not reassessed whether she was still a good fit. A clinical psychologist with 14 years of experience at residential programs testified that moving the student to Diamond Ranch Academy at that point, where she would have had to start over at level one, made no sense given her progress.
Note: The district prevailed on two issues. The ALJ found the district was not required to invite the student's private therapist or independent evaluator to the IEP meeting — those individuals are permissive attendees, not required ones, and the parents could have invited them. The ALJ also found the district was not required to hold a new annual IEP before the start of the 2021–2022 school year, because the December 2020 IEP (to which parents had partially consented) was still in effect.

What Was Ordered

$4,200 reimbursement to parents for the cost of the independent psychological assessment by Dr. Jenkins (payable within 45 days; no additional documentation required).
$65,753 reimbursement for tuition and board at New Haven residential treatment center from January 19, 2021 through June 5, 2021 (payable within 45 days; no additional documentation required).
Up to $8,050 reimbursement for tuition and board at Lake Tahoe Preparatory school from June 6 through August 31, 2021 — payable within 45 days of parents submitting an invoice from the school.
$1,610.38 reimbursement for travel costs associated with a mandatory parents' weekend at New Haven in March 2021 and a one-way plane ticket for the student's home visit in May 2021, covering lodging, airfare, parking, and car rental (payable within 45 days).
All other requests denied, including the 3% credit card processing fee on the assessment, a $212 AP calculus fee, $600 in meal reimbursement for the parents' weekend (no receipts provided), and one extra night of lodging (no justification provided). Educational consultant fees were also denied because no legal authority was cited to support that claim.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child doesn't have to be failing to trigger a special education evaluation. The district argued it had no reason to suspect a disability because the student had excellent grades. The ALJ rejected this. If you notify the school — even informally, even by email to a classroom teacher — that your child has a mental health condition severe enough to prevent school attendance, the district has a legal duty to evaluate her for special education. Good grades do not eliminate that duty.
Document everything in writing, and send it to multiple people. The parent's May 2020 emails to teachers and the school counselor were the key evidence that triggered the child find timeline. Sending written notice — even a simple email — creates a record of when the district was put on notice. If you are concerned about your child's mental health, email the teacher, the counselor, and the principal. Keep copies.
A district offering only one placement option at an IEP meeting is a red flag for predetermination. Parents are entitled to a genuine discussion of placement options — not a take-it-or-leave-it offer at the end of a meeting. If the district presents a single program with no alternatives, no information, and no one present to answer questions, that may be predetermination. You can challenge it, and you may be entitled to reimbursement for a placement you chose on your own.
You can unilaterally place your child in a private program and seek reimbursement — but document your objections carefully. Parents here gave the district formal 10-day written notice before placing their child at New Haven, provided letters from three qualified professionals explaining their concerns, and kept a paper trail throughout. The private program does not need to be state-approved or perfect — it only needs to provide educational benefit and address the child's needs. The ALJ reimbursed the full cost of two private placements totaling nearly $74,000.
Bring your own experts to IEP meetings, or make sure their recommendations are in the record. The district's professionals had not evaluated or treated the student, while the parents' private evaluator and therapist had. When experts who have direct knowledge of a child contradict school staff who do not, hearing officers give greater weight to those with firsthand experience. If your child's private therapist or evaluator has recommendations, get them in writing and submit them to the district before or at the IEP meeting — even if you cannot get them in the room.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed its child find duty (May 2020 – October 2020). When parents emailed teachers and the school counselor in May 2020 describing the student's severe depression, anxiety, and inability to attend school, the district was legally required to refer her for a special education assessment. Instead, it did nothing. Even after the student attempted suicide in September 2020, the district held a 504 meeting without ever discussing special education. The district's failure to act on clear notice of a potential disability was a procedural violation that caused a real loss of educational opportunity.
Wrote an unmeasurable IEP goal. The student's initial December 2020 IEP contained only one social-emotional goal. That goal lacked a meaningful baseline — no one on the IEP team could determine how often the student was actually attending school, making it impossible to know whether a target of "50 percent attendance" represented any improvement at all. The district's own school psychologist could not explain the baseline. The district argued it would fix the goal at a 30-day review, but the ALJ held the district was required to develop an appropriate goal from the start.
Offered insufficient therapy services. The IEP offered 60 minutes per week of individual counseling and 120 minutes per week of group counseling. Both the student's private therapist at the wilderness program (who had worked with her for three months) and the independent psychologist who evaluated her recommended two to three hours per week of individual therapy, daily group therapy, and weekly family therapy. The district's witnesses who defended the lower amounts had never evaluated or treated the student. The experts who had direct knowledge of the student were given greater weight.
Predetermined placement at Diamond Ranch Academy. Before the December 2020 IEP meeting even took place, the district's lead team had already decided it would offer Diamond Ranch Academy as the only placement option. The district confirmed Diamond Ranch had a spot available and reached out to the facility's liaison before the IEP was developed. At the meeting itself, the placement was announced in the last few minutes with no information provided about the program, no representative from Diamond Ranch present, and no discussion of any alternative residential treatment centers. This is predetermination — a serious procedural violation that strips parents of their right to participate meaningfully in placement decisions.
Refused to reconsider placement despite parent objections. After the meeting, parents immediately raised detailed concerns about Diamond Ranch Academy's behavioral therapy model and provided letters from three private professionals recommending a different facility. The district responded with a form letter disagreeing, did not research any alternative programs, and did not offer another IEP meeting to discuss the concerns. At the February 2021 follow-up IEP meeting, the district still offered only Diamond Ranch Academy, without gathering any updated information about how the student was doing at New Haven, where she had been for three weeks.
Continued to offer an inappropriate placement in May 2021. At the May 2021 IEP meeting, the district again proposed Diamond Ranch Academy — even though the student had been at New Haven for five months and made significant progress. Diamond Ranch Academy had no updated information about the student and had not reassessed whether she was still a good fit. A clinical psychologist with 14 years of experience at residential programs testified that moving the student to Diamond Ranch Academy at that point, where she would have had to start over at level one, made no sense given her progress.
Note: The district prevailed on two issues. The ALJ found the district was not required to invite the student's private therapist or independent evaluator to the IEP meeting — those individuals are permissive attendees, not required ones, and the parents could have invited them. The ALJ also found the district was not required to hold a new annual IEP before the start of the 2021–2022 school year, because the December 2020 IEP (to which parents had partially consented) was still in effect.

What Was Ordered

$4,200 reimbursement to parents for the cost of the independent psychological assessment by Dr. Jenkins (payable within 45 days; no additional documentation required).
$65,753 reimbursement for tuition and board at New Haven residential treatment center from January 19, 2021 through June 5, 2021 (payable within 45 days; no additional documentation required).
Up to $8,050 reimbursement for tuition and board at Lake Tahoe Preparatory school from June 6 through August 31, 2021 — payable within 45 days of parents submitting an invoice from the school.
$1,610.38 reimbursement for travel costs associated with a mandatory parents' weekend at New Haven in March 2021 and a one-way plane ticket for the student's home visit in May 2021, covering lodging, airfare, parking, and car rental (payable within 45 days).
All other requests denied, including the 3% credit card processing fee on the assessment, a $212 AP calculus fee, $600 in meal reimbursement for the parents' weekend (no receipts provided), and one extra night of lodging (no justification provided). Educational consultant fees were also denied because no legal authority was cited to support that claim.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child doesn't have to be failing to trigger a special education evaluation. The district argued it had no reason to suspect a disability because the student had excellent grades. The ALJ rejected this. If you notify the school — even informally, even by email to a classroom teacher — that your child has a mental health condition severe enough to prevent school attendance, the district has a legal duty to evaluate her for special education. Good grades do not eliminate that duty.
Document everything in writing, and send it to multiple people. The parent's May 2020 emails to teachers and the school counselor were the key evidence that triggered the child find timeline. Sending written notice — even a simple email — creates a record of when the district was put on notice. If you are concerned about your child's mental health, email the teacher, the counselor, and the principal. Keep copies.
A district offering only one placement option at an IEP meeting is a red flag for predetermination. Parents are entitled to a genuine discussion of placement options — not a take-it-or-leave-it offer at the end of a meeting. If the district presents a single program with no alternatives, no information, and no one present to answer questions, that may be predetermination. You can challenge it, and you may be entitled to reimbursement for a placement you chose on your own.
You can unilaterally place your child in a private program and seek reimbursement — but document your objections carefully. Parents here gave the district formal 10-day written notice before placing their child at New Haven, provided letters from three qualified professionals explaining their concerns, and kept a paper trail throughout. The private program does not need to be state-approved or perfect — it only needs to provide educational benefit and address the child's needs. The ALJ reimbursed the full cost of two private placements totaling nearly $74,000.
Bring your own experts to IEP meetings, or make sure their recommendations are in the record. The district's professionals had not evaluated or treated the student, while the parents' private evaluator and therapist had. When experts who have direct knowledge of a child contradict school staff who do not, hearing officers give greater weight to those with firsthand experience. If your child's private therapist or evaluator has recommendations, get them in writing and submit them to the district before or at the IEP meeting — even if you cannot get them in the room.