District Wins IEE Dispute: Behavioral Assessment of Autistic Preschooler Found Adequate

Del Norte County Unified School District filed for due process to defend its November 2022 functional behavior assessment of a preschool-age student with autism after parents requested an independent evaluation at public expense two years later. The ALJ found the district's assessment was appropriately conducted despite some procedural errors, concluding those errors were harmless. The student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent educational evaluation in functional behavior.

What Happened

Student was a three-year-old preschool student eligible for special education under the category of speech or language impairment, and had been diagnosed with autism. In spring 2022, an incident occurred in Student's preschool classroom involving a peer, which deeply alarmed her parents. Parents were concerned that Student's behavior — specifically lying on her back with her legs in the air during carpet time — made her unsafe and vulnerable to being touched inappropriately by peers. Parents requested a functional behavior assessment (FBA), which is a process for identifying the reasons behind a child's behavior so that effective, supportive interventions can be developed. The district agreed and conducted the FBA in fall 2022. After the assessment was completed, an IEP team meeting was held in November 2022 to review the results, and Mother participated actively. The district's behaviorist concluded that Student's behaviors were age-appropriate, not impeding her education, and that she was responding well to classroom supports already in place.

More than two years later, in October 2024, Parents requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) — meaning they wanted the district to pay for an outside expert to conduct a new FBA because they disagreed with the district's 2022 assessment. The district declined to fund the IEE and instead filed for due process to defend the quality of its original assessment. The hearing also involved a significant side dispute: the ALJ found that Mother had contacted the district's assessor before she testified, made false statements to frighten her, and asked her to write a letter blaming the district — conduct the ALJ described as highly inappropriate witness intimidation. While the district's motion for a mistrial was denied because the assessor ultimately testified without altering her account, Mother's conduct significantly harmed her credibility as a witness.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor, finding the November 2022 FBA was appropriately conducted and met professional standards. The district's board-certified behavior analyst conducted five direct observation sessions totaling over 7.5 hours, reviewed Student's complete school records, interviewed Mother and Student's teacher, used a standardized screening tool (the Functional Analysis Screening Tool), collected data on the antecedents and consequences of Student's behaviors, graphed the results, and made recommendations. The data showed Student had only three brief tantrums and two instances of noncompliance during the entire assessment period — behaviors the assessor found typical for a child her age and comparable to her general education peers.

The ALJ acknowledged several flaws in the district's process. The assessment plan did not include a copy of the required procedural safeguards notice, which is a violation of federal law. The assessment report also cited outdated, repealed California regulations and contained minor formatting errors. However, the ALJ found all of these were harmless errors — meaning they did not actually hurt Student or prevent Parents from participating in decisions about her education. Parents had received the procedural safeguards at two prior IEP meetings, had requested and cooperated with the FBA, and actively participated in the IEP meeting where results were discussed. Mother did not raise any objection to the assessment until two years after it was completed.

The ALJ also rejected Student's argument that the assessment failed to adequately address her autism diagnosis, finding that the assessor reviewed the relevant records and that the data simply did not show autism-related behaviors interfering with Student's school participation.

What Was Ordered

Del Norte's November 2, 2022 functional behavior assessment was found to be legally compliant.
Student is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation in functional behavior at public expense.
Parents retain the right to obtain an independent evaluation at their own expense if they choose.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to request an IEE, but timing and documentation matter. Parents who disagree with a district assessment can request an independent evaluation at public expense — but waiting two years without raising concerns along the way can make it harder to show the assessment caused real harm. If you have concerns about an assessment, document them and raise them at the IEP meeting.
Procedural errors don't automatically win your case. The district made real mistakes here — failing to provide the required procedural safeguards notice with the assessment plan. But the law only treats procedural violations as a denial of FAPE if they actually hurt the student or blocked the parent from participating. Minor paperwork errors alone are unlikely to result in an order for an IEE or other relief.
The district is not required to know your native language unless you tell them. The ALJ found the district had no obligation to provide the assessment plan in Father's native language (Arabic) because Parents had deliberately concealed this from the district out of fear of discrimination. If you need documents in your native language, you must affirmatively request this — the district cannot guess.
Witness conduct during a hearing can affect your credibility and your case. The ALJ found Mother's communications with the district's expert witness — including false statements designed to discourage her from testifying — reflected negatively on Mother's credibility throughout the hearing. Parents should never contact opposing witnesses outside the formal hearing process, as doing so can seriously undermine their own case.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Del Norte's November 2, 2022 functional behavior assessment was found to be legally compliant.
Student is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation in functional behavior at public expense.
Parents retain the right to obtain an independent evaluation at their own expense if they choose.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to request an IEE, but timing and documentation matter. Parents who disagree with a district assessment can request an independent evaluation at public expense — but waiting two years without raising concerns along the way can make it harder to show the assessment caused real harm. If you have concerns about an assessment, document them and raise them at the IEP meeting.
Procedural errors don't automatically win your case. The district made real mistakes here — failing to provide the required procedural safeguards notice with the assessment plan. But the law only treats procedural violations as a denial of FAPE if they actually hurt the student or blocked the parent from participating. Minor paperwork errors alone are unlikely to result in an order for an IEE or other relief.
The district is not required to know your native language unless you tell them. The ALJ found the district had no obligation to provide the assessment plan in Father's native language (Arabic) because Parents had deliberately concealed this from the district out of fear of discrimination. If you need documents in your native language, you must affirmatively request this — the district cannot guess.
Witness conduct during a hearing can affect your credibility and your case. The ALJ found Mother's communications with the district's expert witness — including false statements designed to discourage her from testifying — reflected negatively on Mother's credibility throughout the hearing. Parents should never contact opposing witnesses outside the formal hearing process, as doing so can seriously undermine their own case.