Palo Alto Gets Court Approval to Move Autistic 4th Grader to Stricter Placement After Repeated Injuries

What Happened

Student was a 9-year-old fourth grader with autism and a secondary eligibility of speech and language impairment, enrolled at El Carmelo Elementary School in Palo Alto. Student's IEP, dated September 29, 2022 and consented to by Parents on December 2, 2022, included a behavior intervention plan targeting three behaviors: aggression, elopement, and non-compliance. Despite the plan being implemented with fidelity by trained staff, Student had 18 documented incidents between December 2022 and May 18, 2023, in which his behavior caused injury to other students, aides, or teachers. Those injuries included biting, scratching, hair-pulling, hitting, spitting, and kicking.

The most serious incident occurred on May 18, 2023, during an off-campus field trip, when Student bit through a staff member's jacket and shirt, leaving a large, bleeding wound on her forearm — an injury that required extensive medical treatment and left a visible scar. A prior OAH decision (Case No. 2023070050) had already authorized an initial 45-day placement at Creative Learning Center, a nonpublic school. This case arose because Palo Alto sought authorization for a second 45-day placement there, arguing that returning Student to El Carmelo remained substantially likely to result in injury to others.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of Palo Alto on both issues presented. Under federal special education law, a school district can request a hearing to move a student to an interim alternative educational setting — without parental consent — if keeping the student in their current placement is substantially likely to cause injury to the student or to others. The ALJ found Palo Alto met that standard.

The evidence showed that despite a well-staffed and carefully arranged classroom, specialized seating, a one-to-one aide, a behavior intervention plan, movement breaks, rewards systems, and Safety Care training for all staff, Student's aggressive behaviors continued and even escalated. Teachers rearranged their classrooms to protect other students, who were at times visibly afraid of Student. Staff members were injured repeatedly, sometimes during preferred activities and without observable warning signs. The ALJ found the testimony of Palo Alto's witnesses — including Student's classroom teacher, two general education teachers, his aide, and a board-certified behavior analyst — credible and consistent.

Student's private behavior analyst argued that the district's behavior intervention plan was not being followed correctly and that Student did not pose a substantial risk of injury. The ALJ gave this testimony little weight, finding that it downplayed the severity of the May 18 injury and ignored the frequency and escalating severity of Student's aggression. The ALJ also rejected Student's legal argument that the district had to prove it provided sufficient supplemental aides and services before being allowed to seek a placement change — noting that even if that standard applied, the district's evidence satisfied it.

The ALJ further found that Creative Learning Center was an appropriate interim alternative educational setting. The nonpublic school had three board-certified behavior analysts on staff, ABA-trained classroom aides (a higher qualification than Palo Alto could provide), small class sizes, and the ability to implement Student's full IEP including any one-to-one aide support.

What Was Ordered

1. Within 15 days of the decision, Palo Alto was authorized to remove Student from El Carmelo Elementary School and place him at Creative Learning Center as an interim alternative educational setting.
2. The placement at Creative Learning Center may not exceed 45 school days, after which Palo Alto must return Student to El Carmelo Elementary unless the parties otherwise agree or a new order is issued.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts can seek court approval to move your child without your consent if they believe the current placement poses a safety risk. Under federal law, when a district believes a student's presence is substantially likely to cause injury, it can ask an ALJ to authorize a temporary placement change — even if you disagree. This is a specific legal process with strict timelines, and it can be repeated after each 45-day period.

2. A behavior intervention plan alone may not be enough to prevent a placement change. The ALJ acknowledged that Palo Alto implemented Student's plan faithfully. The continued and escalating injuries despite that implementation was precisely what justified the district's request. Parents should know that a well-drafted BIP does not automatically protect against removal if serious incidents keep occurring.

3. Your private expert's testimony must directly address the severity of specific incidents to be credible. Student's private behavior analyst lost credibility with the ALJ because she defined "substantial likelihood of injury" too narrowly and did not adequately address the seriousness of the documented injuries. If you hire an expert, they need to engage honestly with the worst incidents — not minimize them.

4. Tour and engage with any proposed alternative placement early. In this case, a tour of Creative Learning Center was originally scheduled in June 2023 but was cancelled by Parent, and only completed the day of the final hearing. Early engagement with a proposed placement gives parents more time to evaluate it and potentially identify concerns or propose alternatives before a decision is made.