Tustin USD Wins Right to Assess Student Over One Parent's Refusal

Tustin Unified School District filed for due process after one of two divorced parents refused to consent to a triennial reassessment for a 14-year-old student with emotional disturbance. The ALJ ruled that the district had followed proper procedures, documented reasonable efforts to obtain consent, and had a legitimate need to reassess the student. Tustin was granted permission to proceed with the triennial assessment without the non-consenting parent's approval.

What Happened

A 14-year-old ninth grader enrolled in Tustin Unified School District's behavior support program special day class was due for his triennial reassessment. The student was eligible for special education under the category of emotional disturbance and had transferred into Tustin in April 2021. His parents are divorced and share joint educational decision-making rights. Tustin had never assessed the student itself — his last evaluation was conducted by Irvine Unified in 2018, making the triennial overdue by September 2021. The district needed updated data to write appropriate IEP goals, determine services, and evaluate whether the student's current placement was the least restrictive environment appropriate for him.

Parent One consented to the assessment plan. Parent Two, however, refused — eventually telling the district not to conduct any assessments until a custody dispute was resolved, and threatening legal action if Tustin proceeded. After months of outreach, Tustin filed for due process seeking permission to conduct the assessment without Parent Two's consent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of Tustin, finding that the district met every legal requirement to proceed with a reassessment over a parent's objection:

Reassessment was legally required and educationally necessary. The student's triennial was overdue, Tustin had never independently assessed him, and school staff had concerns that his restrictive placement might not be the least restrictive environment. Updated data was needed to offer appropriate FAPE.
The assessment plan was legally sufficient. The April 30, 2021 plan was written in plain English (the parents' native language), clearly explained every area to be assessed (academic achievement, health, social-emotional functioning, educationally related mental health services, and cognitive ability), identified the examiners, and stated that no IEP changes would result without parental consent.
Tustin provided proper notice. The district sent the plan by email, followed up by phone multiple times, held an informal meeting with both parents, sent updated copies in August and October 2021, and documented every contact attempt.
Tustin made reasonable efforts to obtain consent. Over roughly six months, the district made repeated phone calls, sent multiple emails and written notices, and held meetings — all documented — before resorting to a due process hearing.
The proposed assessors were competent. The school psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist, and special education teacher each had relevant credentials and years of experience conducting the specific assessments proposed.

What Was Ordered

Tustin Unified School District is authorized to conduct the triennial reassessment pursuant to the April 30, 2021 assessment plan without Parent Two's consent.
The 60-day timeline to complete all assessments and hold an IEP team meeting to review the results begins on the date of the decision (January 6, 2022).

Why This Matters for Parents

When parents share educational rights, one parent's consent may not be enough to block an assessment. In cases of joint educational decision-making, a district can go to hearing if one parent consents and the other refuses — and the refusing parent's objection may be overridden, especially without a specific educational reason for the refusal.
Vague or personal objections carry little weight. Parent Two's refusal was tied to an ongoing custody dispute — not to any concern about the assessment itself. ALJs look for substantive educational reasons to deny an assessment; personal disputes between parents generally do not qualify.
Districts have a legal duty to reassess every three years. A triennial evaluation is not optional, and parents cannot indefinitely block it by refusing consent. If a district follows proper procedures and documents its efforts, a hearing officer can authorize the assessment over objection.
Document your own objections carefully and specifically. If you have genuine concerns about a proposed assessment — the tools being used, who will conduct it, the areas being assessed — put those objections in writing with specific reasons. A documented, education-based objection is far stronger than a general refusal.
Consent override is a last resort, not a first step. This case shows that a district must make extensive, documented good-faith efforts to obtain consent before filing for due process. As a parent, you are entitled to that full outreach process — and if a district skips it, that is a procedural violation you can raise.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of Tustin, finding that the district met every legal requirement to proceed with a reassessment over a parent's objection:

Reassessment was legally required and educationally necessary. The student's triennial was overdue, Tustin had never independently assessed him, and school staff had concerns that his restrictive placement might not be the least restrictive environment. Updated data was needed to offer appropriate FAPE.
The assessment plan was legally sufficient. The April 30, 2021 plan was written in plain English (the parents' native language), clearly explained every area to be assessed (academic achievement, health, social-emotional functioning, educationally related mental health services, and cognitive ability), identified the examiners, and stated that no IEP changes would result without parental consent.
Tustin provided proper notice. The district sent the plan by email, followed up by phone multiple times, held an informal meeting with both parents, sent updated copies in August and October 2021, and documented every contact attempt.
Tustin made reasonable efforts to obtain consent. Over roughly six months, the district made repeated phone calls, sent multiple emails and written notices, and held meetings — all documented — before resorting to a due process hearing.
The proposed assessors were competent. The school psychologist, licensed marriage and family therapist, and special education teacher each had relevant credentials and years of experience conducting the specific assessments proposed.

What Was Ordered

Tustin Unified School District is authorized to conduct the triennial reassessment pursuant to the April 30, 2021 assessment plan without Parent Two's consent.
The 60-day timeline to complete all assessments and hold an IEP team meeting to review the results begins on the date of the decision (January 6, 2022).

Why This Matters for Parents

When parents share educational rights, one parent's consent may not be enough to block an assessment. In cases of joint educational decision-making, a district can go to hearing if one parent consents and the other refuses — and the refusing parent's objection may be overridden, especially without a specific educational reason for the refusal.
Vague or personal objections carry little weight. Parent Two's refusal was tied to an ongoing custody dispute — not to any concern about the assessment itself. ALJs look for substantive educational reasons to deny an assessment; personal disputes between parents generally do not qualify.
Districts have a legal duty to reassess every three years. A triennial evaluation is not optional, and parents cannot indefinitely block it by refusing consent. If a district follows proper procedures and documents its efforts, a hearing officer can authorize the assessment over objection.
Document your own objections carefully and specifically. If you have genuine concerns about a proposed assessment — the tools being used, who will conduct it, the areas being assessed — put those objections in writing with specific reasons. A documented, education-based objection is far stronger than a general refusal.
Consent override is a last resort, not a first step. This case shows that a district must make extensive, documented good-faith efforts to obtain consent before filing for due process. As a parent, you are entitled to that full outreach process — and if a district skips it, that is a procedural violation you can raise.