District Wins Right to Assess Student Over Parents' Refusal to Consent

What Happened

Student enrolled in Rosedale Union Elementary School District at the start of the 2021-2022 school year. Student had previously qualified for special education under the eligibility category of autism, but a 2018 reassessment by a prior district removed that eligibility, leaving Student eligible only under speech-language impairment due to a fluency disorder. A 2019 reassessment by another prior district, Fruitvale, proposed adding specialized academic instruction and occupational therapy, but Mother did not consent to that IEP — and later disputed the authenticity of documents related to it. When Student transferred to Rosedale, Parents made clear they wanted Student's eligibility changed back to autism.

Rosedale attempted to hold IEP meetings and obtain consent to reassess Student multiple times between August 2021 and January 2023. Parents refused to attend IEP meetings, refused to accept email communications, demanded the school nurse be present (and then refused to proceed when she was unavailable), and repeatedly accused prior school districts — not Rosedale — of forging or altering IEP documents. Rosedale sent the assessment plan to each parent by mail, sent reminder letters, and even filed a prior written notice warning Parents it would seek a due process hearing if they didn't consent. Parents never responded. With Student's last assessment now over three years old and no updated data available to build an IEP, Rosedale filed for due process to obtain the right to assess Student without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

Because this case was filed by the district, this section explains why the ALJ ruled in Rosedale's favor.

The ALJ found that Rosedale had a clear and legitimate need to reassess Student. Federal and California law require school districts to conduct reassessments at least once every three years. Student's last assessment was from 2019 — more than three years prior — making the triennial reassessment legally required. On top of that, Parents themselves had requested a change in Student's eligibility to autism, which Rosedale could not do without fresh assessment data. The ALJ concluded that Rosedale adequately explained all of this to Parents and that Parents had more than enough information to give informed consent.

The ALJ also found that Rosedale's November 5, 2021 assessment plan met all legal requirements. It was written in plain English, described each area to be assessed (academics, health, speech-language, occupational therapy, and social-emotional functioning), explained why the assessments were needed, included procedural safeguards, and made clear that no new IEP would result without parental consent. The plan gave Parents room to request additional evaluations and invited them to contact the school psychologist with questions.

Finally, the ALJ found that Rosedale made extensive, good-faith efforts to obtain consent — mailing documents to each parent individually, following up months later, and issuing formal prior written notice. Parents' refusal was rooted in disputes about documents created by prior school districts, not Rosedale. The law does not give parents an absolute veto over a district's right to assess a student, and continued refusal left Student with outdated information that made it impossible to develop an appropriate educational program.

What Was Ordered

1. Rosedale may conduct a full multidisciplinary assessment of Student under the November 5, 2021 assessment plan.
2. Rosedale must notify each parent within 15 business days of the decision with the dates, times, and locations for the assessments.
3. Rosedale has authority to approve or reject any changes Parents propose to the scheduled assessment dates.
4. Parents are ordered to make Student available for all assessments as scheduled.
5. Parents must promptly complete and return all required documents, including health history forms, parent interviews, and rating scales — honestly and in good faith.
6. Both parties are ordered to communicate cooperatively and professionally throughout the assessment process.
7. Rosedale may use email to communicate with Parents about scheduling and assessment logistics.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Refusing to consent to reassessment can backfire. When parents withhold consent for a school district's assessment plan, the district can go to court or OAH and ask a judge to override that refusal. If the district shows the assessment plan is legally sound and the reassessment is necessary, parents can end up with a court order requiring them to cooperate — and losing the ability to negotiate the process.

2. You cannot use disputes with prior districts to block a new district from doing its job. This case shows that a new school district cannot be held responsible for what prior districts did. If you have concerns about past IEPs or documents from another district, address those separately — don't refuse to participate with the new district.

3. If you want your child's eligibility changed, you generally have to allow an assessment. Parents here wanted Student's eligibility category changed to autism, but blocked the very assessment that would have made that change possible. A district cannot change a student's eligibility without data — assessment is the only legal path to a new eligibility determination.

4. An "informed consent" standard does not require you to understand every detail. The law only requires that parents have a general understanding of what assessments will occur and why. A plan does not have to be exhaustive to be legally valid. If you have concerns about what a plan includes, ask questions early — before refusing to sign.