District Wins: Parent's Claims of Assessment Failures and FAPE Denial Rejected for Preschooler

A parent filed for due process against San Bernardino City Unified School District, claiming the district failed to assess her five-year-old foster child in nine areas of suspected disability, denied her appropriate IEP goals and services, and excluded required IEP team members without consent. The ALJ found that the district acted reasonably throughout the enrollment and assessment process, conducted a legally sufficient evaluation, and offered an appropriate IEP once Student was found eligible for special education in December 2021. All of the parent's claims were denied and the district prevailed on every issue.

What Happened

Student was a five-year-old foster child attending Arrowhead Grove Headstart, a San Bernardino County preschool program unaffiliated with San Bernardino City Unified School District. Parent claimed she first tried to enroll Student and request a special education assessment in March 2021, alleging she was turned away by district staff. Parent also claimed a social worker and the Headstart program made referrals in April and August 2021 that the district ignored. The district disputed all of this, and the ALJ found Parent's testimony unreliable and contradicted by the documented record. The first verified contact between Parent and the district occurred on October 12, 2021. The district moved quickly: Parent signed the assessment plan on November 5, 2021, Student was assessed on November 10, 2021, and an IEP team meeting was held on December 9, 2021 — within the required 60-day window. At that meeting, Student was found eligible for special education under the category of speech and language impairment due to a mild articulation disorder. The IEP offered one goal and 90 minutes per month of speech therapy services.

Parent filed for due process in February 2022, alleging the district should have assessed Student in nine areas (including autism, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and auditory processing), failed to offer adequate IEP goals across nine domains, denied Student a one-to-one aide and in-home ABA therapy, refused to provide parent training, and improperly excused the school nurse and general education teacher from the IEP meeting without informed consent. The ALJ denied every claim.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district did not violate its child-find or assessment obligations. Because Student was enrolled in a private county preschool — not a San Bernardino City program — the district could not enroll or assess Student without documented proof of who held educational rights (particularly important given Student's foster care status) and written parental consent. When the social worker called in April 2021, she left incomplete and confusing information and never returned the district's callback. The Headstart referral in August 2021 similarly went unanswered by the referring staff. The ALJ found the district responded reasonably to each contact by returning calls and making itself available.

On the substantive claims, the ALJ credited the testimony of the district's three assessors — a speech-language pathologist, a school psychologist, and a special education teacher — over Parent's account. The assessors found Student performed in the average range academically and in most adaptive, social, and language areas. Student had no observed processing delays, no behavioral concerns, and no signs of autism. Parent's report of a 30-second delay in answering yes/no questions was specifically rejected as unsupported. The ALJ also found Student did not need a one-to-one aide, in-home ABA therapy, extended school year services, or formal parent training. As for the IEP team composition issue, the ALJ found Parent had signed written excusal forms for both the nurse and the general education teacher, both of whom provided input into the IEP before the meeting, and that Parent meaningfully participated in the meeting itself.

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by Student was denied.
The district prevailed on all seven issues (Issues 1A through 7), encompassing all nine assessment areas, all nine goal areas, regression supports, social skills programming, one-to-one aide, in-home ABA therapy, parent training, and IEP team composition.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document every contact with your district in writing. Parent's central claim — that she was turned away in March 2021 — failed entirely because there was no paper trail. A follow-up email, a written request, or even a dated note could have made the difference. If you contact a school to request an evaluation, put it in writing and keep a copy.
Foster care situations require extra documentation steps before a district can act. The district was found to have acted reasonably in requiring proof of who held educational rights before enrolling and assessing Student. If your child is in foster care, work proactively with the social worker to gather the court documents establishing educational rights — this can prevent significant delays.
Third-party referrals (like from a preschool or social worker) may not be enough on their own. The ALJ found the district satisfied its obligations simply by returning phone calls that were never followed up. If you are relying on a school, preschool, or social worker to make a referral on your child's behalf, confirm in writing that the referral was received and follow up directly yourself.
Parent testimony alone, without supporting expert or teacher evidence, is unlikely to win. Nearly every one of Parent's claims was rejected because it was based solely on Parent's own reports — which the ALJ found inconsistent and unreliable — without corroborating teacher observations, independent expert evaluations, or other documentation. If you believe your child needs services the district is not offering, gather supporting evidence from teachers, doctors, or independent evaluators before filing.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All relief sought by Student was denied.
The district prevailed on all seven issues (Issues 1A through 7), encompassing all nine assessment areas, all nine goal areas, regression supports, social skills programming, one-to-one aide, in-home ABA therapy, parent training, and IEP team composition.

Why This Matters for Parents

Document every contact with your district in writing. Parent's central claim — that she was turned away in March 2021 — failed entirely because there was no paper trail. A follow-up email, a written request, or even a dated note could have made the difference. If you contact a school to request an evaluation, put it in writing and keep a copy.
Foster care situations require extra documentation steps before a district can act. The district was found to have acted reasonably in requiring proof of who held educational rights before enrolling and assessing Student. If your child is in foster care, work proactively with the social worker to gather the court documents establishing educational rights — this can prevent significant delays.
Third-party referrals (like from a preschool or social worker) may not be enough on their own. The ALJ found the district satisfied its obligations simply by returning phone calls that were never followed up. If you are relying on a school, preschool, or social worker to make a referral on your child's behalf, confirm in writing that the referral was received and follow up directly yourself.
Parent testimony alone, without supporting expert or teacher evidence, is unlikely to win. Nearly every one of Parent's claims was rejected because it was based solely on Parent's own reports — which the ALJ found inconsistent and unreliable — without corroborating teacher observations, independent expert evaluations, or other documentation. If you believe your child needs services the district is not offering, gather supporting evidence from teachers, doctors, or independent evaluators before filing.