District Cannot Exit Autistic Student Without a New Assessment First

What Happened

Student was first found eligible for special education under the autism category at age three, in 2017. By first grade, he was attending a general education classroom at a Saddleback Valley school and performing at or above grade level in most academic areas. At Student's October 2021 annual IEP meeting, the district's team concluded that Student no longer needed special education and attempted to exit him from services entirely — surprising Parents, who testified they did not know this was coming. The district pointed to Student's strong academic performance, teacher observations, and portions of two independent evaluations it found favorable. Critically, however, every assessment that had ever been conducted — including both independent evaluations the district cited — had confirmed that Student remained eligible as a child with autism.

Parents filed for due process, and the district filed its own case seeking permission to exit Student without parental consent. The cases were consolidated. Parents raised five issues: whether the district wrongly found Student ineligible, whether it should have offered speech-language services, whether it should have conducted an occupational therapy (OT) assessment for sensory needs, whether it denied Parents meaningful participation, and whether it failed to implement Student's stay-put services at the start of first grade.

What the ALJ Found

The district could not exit Student without a new assessment. Federal and California law are clear: before a district can exit a child from special education, it must conduct an assessment to support that decision. The district skipped this step entirely. Every assessment it relied upon — including the two independent evaluations it selectively cited — actually confirmed Student's autism eligibility. The district also failed to notify Parents of their right to request an assessment before the exit decision was made. These procedural violations significantly impeded Parents' ability to meaningfully participate in the decision, which constituted a denial of FAPE. Student remains eligible under the autism category.

The district wrongly refused to assess Student's sensory needs. An independent psychologist observed Student during testing and documented intense, persistent sensory-seeking behaviors — rocking, fidgeting, crawling under desks, and more — and recommended an OT assessment. The district pointed to an older assessment and said teachers hadn't seen problems at school. The ALJ found this insufficient: the behaviors Dr. Morris observed during assessment were real, consistent with autism, and warranted investigation. The district's refusal to offer an OT assessment denied Parents the information they needed to participate in IEP decisions.

The district prevailed on speech-language services. The independent speech-language evaluator never observed Student at school, never contacted his teachers or therapists, and proposed goals targeting skills Student had already demonstrated. The district's school-based staff convincingly described Student's strong pragmatic and communication skills in real classroom settings. The ALJ found the independent evaluation unpersuasive on this point.

The district prevailed on stay-put implementation and parental participation. Minor scheduling adjustments at the start of first grade did not rise to a "material" failure to implement Student's IEP. And while Parents disagreed with the team's conclusions at the October 2021 IEP meeting, the record showed they actively participated — asking questions, disagreeing, and advocating through counsel. Disagreement with an outcome is not the same as being denied participation.

What Was Ordered

1. Saddleback Valley Unified School District may not exit Student from special education without Parents' consent.
2. Student remains eligible for special education and related services under the autism eligibility category.
3. The district must fund an independent occupational therapy evaluation of Student's sensory needs, conducted by an assessor of Parents' choice, in accordance with district or SELPA criteria for independent evaluations. The district may not require Parents to choose from a district-provided list. The evaluation must include assessment of sensory deficits and sensory-related behaviors, with recommendations for related services if warranted.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district cannot exit your child from special education without first conducting a new assessment. Federal and California law require a formal assessment before any exit decision. If the district skips this step — even if it believes your child no longer needs services — it has violated the law. You have the right to be notified of this requirement and to request an assessment yourself.

2. The district cannot cherry-pick findings from independent evaluations. If the district funds or relies on an outside evaluation, it must consider the whole report — including eligibility conclusions and service recommendations it disagrees with. Selectively using only favorable portions while ignoring the evaluator's main findings is not legally acceptable.

3. Behaviors that only appear outside of school still matter. The ALJ credited an evaluator's observations of sensory-seeking behaviors during testing, even though school staff said they didn't see the same behaviors in class. If your child's evaluator documents significant behaviors in a clinical or testing setting, those observations can support a request for assessment — even if teachers say things look fine at school.

4. An independent evaluator's failure to observe your child at school can seriously undermine their conclusions. California law gives independent assessors the same right to observe a student at school as district assessors have. When an evaluator skips school observations and doesn't contact teachers or providers, their recommendations carry less weight. Make sure any private evaluator you hire takes advantage of school observations.