District Cannot Exit 5-Year-Old with Autism from Special Ed Over Parent Objection

Madera Unified School District filed a due process case seeking to exit a five-year-old student with autism from special education without parental consent, relying almost entirely on a single disputed autism assessment. The ALJ ruled in favor of the parents, finding that the overwhelming evidence — including the district's own testing — showed the student remained severely delayed across cognitive, academic, behavioral, and communication domains. The district was ordered not to exit the student from special education without parental consent.

What Happened

Student was a five-year-old girl with autism who had been found eligible for special education in February 2023, when she was three and a half years old. At that time, Madera Unified conducted thorough assessments across multiple areas — cognition, academics, adaptive behavior, social-emotional development, speech and language, and autism — and every assessor agreed she qualified under the autism eligibility category. She showed severe delays across the board, including in communication, learning, self-care, and behavior. She also received an outside psychological evaluation from a licensed psychologist through the Central Valley Regional Center in May 2023, which confirmed an autism diagnosis and found severe deficits in nearly every tested area.

In early 2024, Madera conducted reassessments to plan for Student's transition to kindergarten. Despite finding continued severe delays in almost every domain, the district concluded that Student no longer qualified for special education. Parents disagreed. Rather than continue providing services, Madera filed a due process complaint seeking permission to exit Student from special education without parental consent. Parents, who represented themselves, argued that Student clearly still needed special education to access her education.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ identified multiple serious problems with how Madera handled this reassessment. First, the district began conducting reassessments on January 9, 2024 — nearly three weeks before Parents even received the assessment plan and a full month before they signed consent on February 7, 2024. Federal and state law require districts to obtain informed parental consent before assessing, not after the process has already begun.

Second, the district's decision to exit Student rested almost entirely on one assessment — the 2024 Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule — administered by a school psychologist who had never met Student before, had not reviewed any prior assessments, could not explain why her results differed dramatically from all other autism testing, and did not follow up with Parents or the IEP team after the evaluation. The ALJ found this assessor's testimony unreliable and gave it little weight. The law explicitly prohibits a district from using a single test as the sole basis for determining that a child no longer qualifies for special education.

Third, the district's lead school psychologist on the 2024 reassessment had only been in the role for six months, did not consult with any prior assessors, and gave testimony that contradicted her own written report and the testimony of other district staff. She claimed Student showed no communication delays during testing, but her own report described Student needing multiple prompts just to identify two colors. The school nurse and special education teacher — both called by the district — actually testified in ways that supported Student's continued need for services, not the district's position. The ALJ found the lead school psychologist's testimony so inconsistent and misleading that it was given no weight at all.

What Was Ordered

Madera Unified School District shall not exit Student from receiving special education and related services without Parents' consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot use a single test to remove your child from special education. Federal and California law require multiple measures across multiple areas before any eligibility decision can be made — whether to qualify a child or to exit one. If a district points to just one assessment to justify removing services, that is legally insufficient.
Assessments must begin only after you give written consent. Districts are required to obtain your signed consent before starting the assessment process, not before finishing it. If a district starts evaluating your child before you've agreed to the assessment plan, that is a procedural violation you can raise.
When assessment results conflict, the district must explain why. If a new evaluation produces results that are dramatically different from prior testing, the district cannot simply ignore the discrepancy. In this case, the 2024 autism assessment contradicted every other autism evaluation Student had ever received, and the assessor could not explain why — which fatally undermined the district's case.
Your child's lack of progress is evidence of need, not evidence of readiness to exit. The district argued that Student's low scores were due to not attending school. The ALJ rejected this, noting that Parents were not legally required to enroll a three-year-old, and that the evidence showed the delays were caused by Student's disability — not by school absence. If your child is falling further behind, that supports the case for more services, not fewer.
You have the right to refuse consent to exit your child from special education. A district cannot remove a child from eligibility without parental agreement. If you disagree, you can withhold consent, and the district must either continue services or file for due process — where it bears the burden of proving your child no longer qualifies.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Madera Unified School District shall not exit Student from receiving special education and related services without Parents' consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot use a single test to remove your child from special education. Federal and California law require multiple measures across multiple areas before any eligibility decision can be made — whether to qualify a child or to exit one. If a district points to just one assessment to justify removing services, that is legally insufficient.
Assessments must begin only after you give written consent. Districts are required to obtain your signed consent before starting the assessment process, not before finishing it. If a district starts evaluating your child before you've agreed to the assessment plan, that is a procedural violation you can raise.
When assessment results conflict, the district must explain why. If a new evaluation produces results that are dramatically different from prior testing, the district cannot simply ignore the discrepancy. In this case, the 2024 autism assessment contradicted every other autism evaluation Student had ever received, and the assessor could not explain why — which fatally undermined the district's case.
Your child's lack of progress is evidence of need, not evidence of readiness to exit. The district argued that Student's low scores were due to not attending school. The ALJ rejected this, noting that Parents were not legally required to enroll a three-year-old, and that the evidence showed the delays were caused by Student's disability — not by school absence. If your child is falling further behind, that supports the case for more services, not fewer.
You have the right to refuse consent to exit your child from special education. A district cannot remove a child from eligibility without parental agreement. If you disagree, you can withhold consent, and the district must either continue services or file for due process — where it bears the burden of proving your child no longer qualifies.