Enterprise Elementary Denied FAPE by Sitting on Assistive Tech Report and Skipping Annual IEP

What Happened

Student is a five-year-old child diagnosed with Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome, a complex condition that causes global developmental delays, epilepsy, orthopedic impairment, and requires gastric tube feeding and daily medication management. Student was eligible for special education under the categories of intellectual disability and orthopedic impairment, and had never actually begun receiving IEP services despite being eligible for preschool. Parent filed a due process complaint in February 2022, alleging that the district had denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by mishandling an assistive technology assessment, failing to make a timely annual IEP offer, and refusing to provide a licensed vocational nurse.

The district had arranged for an outside agency to conduct an assistive technology assessment after Parent requested one in May 2020. Parent consented to the assessment plan in March 2021, which triggered a legal deadline to complete the assessment and review it with the IEP team within 60 days. The assessment was completed in May 2021, but the district did not begin reviewing it with the IEP team until November 2021 — eight months late — and did not finish discussing it until May 2022, fifteen months after Parent's consent. Separately, the district never made a new annual IEP offer after its initial May 2020 IEP, leaving Student without an updated program for nearly two years.

What the District Did Wrong

Failure to timely review the assistive technology assessment. After Parent signed the assessment consent form in March 2021, the law required the district to complete the assessment and hold an IEP team meeting to review it by May 9, 2021. The district did not begin that review until November 2021 — eight months after the deadline — and did not finish until May 2022. The ALJ rejected the district's argument that Parent caused the delay by returning the intake paperwork late, finding that a 25-day delay by a parent does not excuse an eight-to-fifteen-month failure by the district. The delay deprived Parent of critical information she needed to participate meaningfully in developing Student's program, which was itself a denial of FAPE.

Failure to make an annual IEP offer. Federal and state law require districts to review and update a student's IEP at least once a year. The district made its initial IEP offer on May 21, 2020, but failed to complete a new IEP offer until May 2022 — nearly two years later. The ALJ found that from May 21, 2021, through the date the complaint was filed on February 7, 2022, the district's failure to make any IEP offer was a procedural violation that caused real harm: Student was not receiving any services, including the in-person services the assistive technology assessor found were necessary for Student to access his education at all.

The district did not prevail on the licensed vocational nurse issue. The ALJ found Student failed to prove that a licensed vocational nurse was required for FAPE. The district's credentialed school nurse testified she could train a school employee to handle Student's health needs, including gastric tube feeding and medication administration. Additionally, prior to the complaint being filed, Parent, Student's attorney, and Student's own pediatrician had each told the district it did not need to provide medical support. Student's need for a nurse arose only after the complaint period ended, when the family's home health agency could no longer staff the position.

What Was Ordered

1. Enterprise must fund the following compensatory (make-up) services, to be provided by a non-public agency of Parent's choice, either in-person or via teleservices with a funded in-person aide. All hours are available through July 31, 2025:
   • 420 minutes of direct assistive technology services
   • 960 minutes of assistive technology consultation, training, and collaboration for staff and family
   • 2,100 minutes of specialized academic instruction
   • 2,100 minutes of language and speech therapy
   • 1,050 minutes of occupational therapy
   • 240 minutes of physical therapy
   • In-person aide services funded for every teleservice session ordered above
2. Within 15 days, Enterprise must provide a laptop, computer, or tablet for Student and family to access teleservices.
3. Within 30 days, Enterprise must provide an iPad (8th generation with WiFi), a Snap Core First AAC communication app, a speech case, keyguard, and screen protector.
4. Enterprise must fund an independent assistive technology educational evaluation (IEE) by an assessor of Parent's choice, up to $5,000, including time to attend an IEP meeting to present findings.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. The 60-day assessment clock starts when you sign, not when the district gets around to scheduling. Once you sign a consent form for any assessment, the district has a firm legal deadline — in California, typically 60 days plus any school vacation days over five — to complete the assessment and review it at an IEP meeting. Keep the date you signed and count forward. If the district misses that window, it may owe your child compensatory services.

2. Districts must make a new IEP offer every year, no matter what. The law requires an annual IEP review. If a year passes from the date of your child's last IEP offer and no new offer has been made, the district is likely in violation. This is true even if meetings were held but not completed, and even if there are disputes about other issues.

3. A procedural violation becomes a FAPE denial when it causes real harm. Not every paperwork mistake wins a case. The ALJ found FAPE was denied here because the delays meant Student received no services at all — and needed in-person support that was never offered. When you can show that a procedural failure actually cost your child services or kept you from making informed decisions, the legal impact is much stronger.

4. What you tell the district matters — and can be used against you. The ALJ noted that Parent, Parent's attorney, and Student's own doctor had all previously told the district it did not need to worry about medical services. That history was part of why the licensed vocational nurse claim failed. Be thoughtful about written and verbal communications with the district, and make sure your statements reflect your child's current and evolving needs.