District Did Not Violate FAPE When Private School Terminated Its Own Contract

A parent filed a due process complaint against Miller Creek School District after Anova Learning Center terminated its contract to educate her autistic son without prior notice to the family. The parent argued the district should have held an IEP meeting and obtained her consent before the placement change occurred. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district, finding that California law permits a nonpublic school to terminate its contract with 20 days' written notice, and that the district acted appropriately by quickly securing an alternative placement and convening an IEP meeting within that 20-day window.

What Happened

Student was an eleven-year-old fifth grader eligible for special education under the categories of autism and speech and language impairment. His IEP placed him at Anova Center for Education (referred to here as Anova), a private nonpublic school operating under contract with Miller Creek School District. Beginning in the spring of 2020, Student had been receiving his educational services virtually through Anova due to circumstances that eventually led to ongoing conflict about whether Student would return to in-person learning.

By late 2021, concerns were mounting. Anova staff reported behavioral incidents during virtual sessions, including outbursts, conflicts involving Parent, cussing, and swearing. Anova's director also communicated to the district that Student was not making educational progress and that, due to his age and continued virtual attendance, Anova's program could no longer meet his special education needs. On February 4, 2022, Anova sent a formal 20-day written notice terminating its contract with the district, with services ending February 25, 2022. Parent was not consulted before this notice was issued. Parent and Student's attorney (also Student's grandfather) were upset and argued that Anova had effectively expelled Student without following proper disciplinary procedures under the IDEA. The district responded that Anova had terminated the contract for educational reasons — not as a disciplinary measure — and that it had the legal right to do so. The district quickly identified another certified nonpublic school as a replacement and offered an immediate IEP meeting. Parent rejected the new placement.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all issues. The central question was whether Miller Creek violated the IDEA by failing to hold an IEP meeting and obtain Parent's consent before the placement change occurred. The ALJ found that neither Miller Creek nor Student had any legal control over Anova's decision to terminate its contract. Under California Education Code section 56366(a)(4), either party to a master contract or individual services agreement may terminate the arrangement by giving 20 days' written notice — with or without cause. Anova exercised that right, and neither the district nor the family could legally prevent it.

Critically, the ALJ found no evidence that Anova's termination was related to any disciplinary action or code of conduct violation by Student. This distinction mattered because IDEA's discipline protections (Section 1415(k)) apply when a school removes a student for behavior — not when a private provider independently decides it can no longer meet a student's educational needs. The termination was driven by Anova's determination that its program had outgrown its suitability for Student due to his age and persistent virtual attendance.

The ALJ also found that Miller Creek responded appropriately: within the 20-day notice period, the district secured a space at another certified nonpublic school (Irene M. Hunt School in San Anselmo), convened an IEP meeting on February 16, 2022 to discuss the transition, and held follow-up IEP meetings in March and May 2022. Parent provided no legal authority requiring the district or Anova to obtain parental consent before issuing the termination notice, and no evidence that Parent's prior input would have changed Anova's decision.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
Miller Creek was found to have met its obligations under the IDEA and did not deny Student a FAPE.

Why This Matters for Parents

Nonpublic schools have independent contract rights that can override your IEP placement. Under California law, a nonpublic school can terminate its agreement with a district on 20 days' notice — for any reason. This means a placement your child has had for years can end abruptly, without your consent. Knowing this in advance can help you advocate for stronger placement language in your child's IEP.
The district's obligation is to respond quickly, not to prevent the termination. When a nonpublic school ends its contract, the district is not automatically in violation of the IDEA — but it must act fast to find a suitable replacement and offer an IEP meeting. If a district drags its feet or leaves a child without services, that is where legal liability arises.
IDEA discipline protections only apply when removal is for behavior. If a nonpublic school removes your child, it matters a great deal why they did it. If the reason is a behavioral code of conduct violation, your child has strong procedural rights, including a manifestation determination. If the reason is framed as a programmatic or educational fit issue, those discipline protections may not apply.
Rejecting the district's replacement placement without an alternative plan carries risk. In this case, Parent rejected the substitute nonpublic school offered by the district without providing a counterproposal the district could evaluate. Courts and ALJs tend to look more favorably on districts that offer a replacement placement promptly. If you are unhappy with a proposed replacement, document your specific objections in writing and bring independent evidence — such as an independent evaluation — to the IEP meeting to support a different placement.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied.
Miller Creek was found to have met its obligations under the IDEA and did not deny Student a FAPE.

Why This Matters for Parents

Nonpublic schools have independent contract rights that can override your IEP placement. Under California law, a nonpublic school can terminate its agreement with a district on 20 days' notice — for any reason. This means a placement your child has had for years can end abruptly, without your consent. Knowing this in advance can help you advocate for stronger placement language in your child's IEP.
The district's obligation is to respond quickly, not to prevent the termination. When a nonpublic school ends its contract, the district is not automatically in violation of the IDEA — but it must act fast to find a suitable replacement and offer an IEP meeting. If a district drags its feet or leaves a child without services, that is where legal liability arises.
IDEA discipline protections only apply when removal is for behavior. If a nonpublic school removes your child, it matters a great deal why they did it. If the reason is a behavioral code of conduct violation, your child has strong procedural rights, including a manifestation determination. If the reason is framed as a programmatic or educational fit issue, those discipline protections may not apply.
Rejecting the district's replacement placement without an alternative plan carries risk. In this case, Parent rejected the substitute nonpublic school offered by the district without providing a counterproposal the district could evaluate. Courts and ALJs tend to look more favorably on districts that offer a replacement placement promptly. If you are unhappy with a proposed replacement, document your specific objections in writing and bring independent evidence — such as an independent evaluation — to the IEP meeting to support a different placement.