District Wins Manifestation Determination Appeal: False 911 Call Not Linked to Autism or ADHD

A 16-year-old student with ADHD and a medical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder was suspended and faced expulsion after making a false 911 call reporting an active shooter at a neighboring high school during baseball practice. Parents appealed the district's manifestation determination, arguing the conduct was caused by or substantially related to Student's disabilities. ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin upheld the district's finding that the behavior was calculated — not impulsive — and was not a manifestation of Student's disabilities, denying all relief sought by Student.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old 10th grader eligible for special education under the category of other health impairment, with diagnoses of ADHD and a private medical diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 1. Student was academically strong — enrolled in Advanced Placement courses on a diploma track — and received educationally related mental health counseling, behavior intervention services, and had a behavior intervention plan (BIP) addressing a history of threats, inappropriate comments, and misuse of technology. On March 20, 2024, after baseball practice, Student took a teammate's cellphone without permission, called 911, falsely reported an active shooter at a neighboring high school while pretending to be an eight-year-old boy, and then left the scene before police arrived. The incident triggered a school lockdown. Student was suspended for five days and faced expulsion for the remainder of the school year and the following semester.

Kern High School District convened a manifestation determination review (MDR) on April 4, 2024, with a large team that included Parents, Student's behaviorist, mental health clinician, case carrier, school psychologist, and others. The team unanimously concluded that Student's conduct was not caused by, or substantially related to, his disabilities, and was not the result of the district's failure to implement his IEP. Parents disagreed and filed for an expedited due process hearing, challenging both the process of the MDR and its conclusion.

What the ALJ Found

On the procedural challenge (whether the MDR reviewed all relevant information): Parents argued the team only reviewed a summary report and the most recent IEP, missing years of records, BIP details, and standardized test scores. The ALJ rejected this argument. The school psychologist assigned to prepare the MDR report reviewed an extensive list of documents, and five of the eight district team members had participated in multiple prior MDRs for this same student. The ALJ found the team was deeply familiar with Student's history, needs, and records. The law does not require every team member to individually review every document in the file — only that all relevant information be considered, which it was.

On the substantive challenge (whether the conduct was a manifestation of disability): Parents argued the false 911 call was caused by Student's impulsivity, difficulty reading social cues, lack of boundaries, and attention-seeking behavior — all features of ADHD and autism. The ALJ disagreed. The conduct involved multiple deliberate steps: Student waited until the coach was away, went into a teammate's bag, stole the phone, called 911, disguised his voice and identity, fabricated a school shooting at a different campus, and then fled the scene. The ALJ found this was calculated behavior, not impulsive. Student's own behaviorist — who had worked with him for two years and was considered a trusted adult — testified the behavior was calculated and was given significant weight. The ALJ also found no direct connection between the environmental supports in Student's BIP and the specific conduct at issue. The BIP's supervision requirements were designed to address technology misuse in school settings, not theft of another student's phone to place a fake emergency call.

On the IEP implementation claim: Parents argued the baseball coach failed to maintain required supervision under the BIP. The ALJ found the coach was trained on the BIP, was familiar with its requirements, and was briefly away for approximately three minutes retrieving equipment from an adjacent field — which did not constitute a failure to implement the IEP. Even if some gap in supervision existed, Student failed to show a direct connection between that gap and the specific behavior that occurred.

What Was Ordered

The April 4, 2024, manifestation determination that Student's conduct was not caused by or substantially related to his disabilities is affirmed.
The April 4, 2024, manifestation determination that any IEP implementation failure was not a direct cause of Student's conduct is affirmed.
All relief sought by Student from the expedited hearing is denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A disability diagnosis alone does not automatically make every act of misconduct a manifestation of that disability. The law requires that the specific conduct be caused by or have a direct and substantial relationship to the disability — not just that the student has a disability. Courts have long held that not every act by a student with a disability is attributable to that disability, and this case is a clear example of that standard being applied strictly.
The number of steps required to complete a behavior matters in manifestation determinations. The ALJ placed significant weight on the fact that Student's conduct involved multiple sequential decisions — theft, deception, fabrication, and flight — rather than a single impulsive act. If your child's conduct was genuinely impulsive and tied directly to documented disability symptoms, be prepared to show that connection with specific evidence, not just general descriptions of the disability.
Expert witnesses must be credible and well-prepared. Student's expert psychologist met with Student for only one hour the week before the hearing, had never observed Student in school, and characterized the false shooter call as "silly." The ALJ found this undermined his credibility entirely and gave his testimony little weight. Parents seeking to challenge an MDR should retain experts with direct knowledge of the student and a thorough review of the full record — not a last-minute consultant.
IEP implementation failures must be directly connected to the specific conduct at issue. Even if a school fails to fully follow an IEP or BIP, that failure only overturns a manifestation determination if it directly caused the behavior leading to discipline. General lapses in supervision or support that are unrelated to the type of behavior involved will not be enough.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The April 4, 2024, manifestation determination that Student's conduct was not caused by or substantially related to his disabilities is affirmed.
The April 4, 2024, manifestation determination that any IEP implementation failure was not a direct cause of Student's conduct is affirmed.
All relief sought by Student from the expedited hearing is denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A disability diagnosis alone does not automatically make every act of misconduct a manifestation of that disability. The law requires that the specific conduct be caused by or have a direct and substantial relationship to the disability — not just that the student has a disability. Courts have long held that not every act by a student with a disability is attributable to that disability, and this case is a clear example of that standard being applied strictly.
The number of steps required to complete a behavior matters in manifestation determinations. The ALJ placed significant weight on the fact that Student's conduct involved multiple sequential decisions — theft, deception, fabrication, and flight — rather than a single impulsive act. If your child's conduct was genuinely impulsive and tied directly to documented disability symptoms, be prepared to show that connection with specific evidence, not just general descriptions of the disability.
Expert witnesses must be credible and well-prepared. Student's expert psychologist met with Student for only one hour the week before the hearing, had never observed Student in school, and characterized the false shooter call as "silly." The ALJ found this undermined his credibility entirely and gave his testimony little weight. Parents seeking to challenge an MDR should retain experts with direct knowledge of the student and a thorough review of the full record — not a last-minute consultant.
IEP implementation failures must be directly connected to the specific conduct at issue. Even if a school fails to fully follow an IEP or BIP, that failure only overturns a manifestation determination if it directly caused the behavior leading to discipline. General lapses in supervision or support that are unrelated to the type of behavior involved will not be enough.