Capistrano Unified Ordered Compensatory Ed for Missing IEP Goals, but Denied Tuition Reimbursement After Family Moved to Kentucky

What Happened

A nine-year-old boy with orthographic dyslexia (also called surface dyslexia) and attention deficits enrolled in Capistrano Unified for first grade at the start of the 2022–2023 school year. Within the first weeks of school, the district identified his reading skills as well below grade level and placed him in an intensive reading intervention program. After two cycles of that intervention showed limited progress, the district referred him for a special education assessment in December 2022. Following evaluation, the district held an IEP meeting on March 1, 2023, and found him eligible for special education under specific learning disability and other health impairment. Parents consented to the IEP in March 2023.

However, following that school year, the family's circumstances changed significantly. Parents separated, and Mother moved with the student and his twin sibling to Kentucky, where she enrolled them in The Lexington School, a private school with a specialized dyslexia program. Parents did not return to California and instead continued living in Kentucky through the time of the hearing. Despite being out of state, Parents sought reimbursement from Capistrano Unified for Lexington's tuition (nearly $79,000), two dyslexia summer camps ($3,910), and an independent educational evaluation ($8,500), and also alleged the district had denied their son a free appropriate public education through multiple IEP and procedural failures. Capistrano Unified counter-filed its own complaint defending its 2023 psychoeducational assessment. The cases were consolidated and heard over five days in August 2025.

What the ALJ Found

The outcome was mixed, with the district prevailing on most issues and the student prevailing on a narrow but significant set of IEP goal deficiencies.

Child Find (Issue 1) — District Won: The ALJ found Capistrano Unified did not fail its child find obligation in November–December 2022. It had promptly identified the student's academic deficits at the start of first grade, placed him in intensive reading intervention, and referred him for assessment after reviewing his second cycle of data — a reasonable and appropriate timeline.

March 2023 IEP Goals — Student Won on Three Goals: The ALJ found the March 1, 2023 IEP unlawfully failed to include appropriate goals in attention, executive functioning, and self-advocacy. The district had sufficient assessment data showing these needs but did not translate them into IEP goals. This was a denial of FAPE.

March 2023 IEP — District Won on All Other Goal Areas: Goals in basic reading, reading fluency, reading comprehension, writing, math, phonological processing, and orthographic processing were found to be adequate for the time.

March 2023 IEP — District Won on Counseling/Behavioral Services and Placement: The ALJ found the district was not required to offer more intensive counseling, behavioral services, or a small-group classroom placement under the March 2023 IEP.

February 2023 Psychoeducational Assessment — District Won: The assessment was found to be legally sufficient. Assessors were qualified, used appropriate tools, gathered input from the teacher via questionnaire (even without a formal interview), reviewed records, observed the student, and interviewed him. The ALJ rejected the argument that failing to formally interview the teacher rendered the assessment deficient.

May 2024 IEP and All 2023–2025 Claims — District Won on Residency Grounds: The ALJ found that Mother had permanently relocated to Kentucky after the 2022–2023 school year and that the California home was not her primary residence. Because the family no longer resided within Capistrano Unified's boundaries, the district had no obligation to offer the student an IEP for the 2023–2024 or 2024–2025 school years. This disposed of all claims relating to the May 2024 IEP, the district's alleged failure to hold an annual IEP meeting, failure to consider the private IEE, and failure to have an IEP in place for 2025–2026.

IEE Funding — District Won: Because the district's assessment was found appropriate, the district was not required to fund Parents' $8,500 independent educational evaluation.

Tuition Reimbursement — Denied: Reimbursement for Lexington tuition was denied for multiple reasons: Parents did not provide proper written notice to the district of their intent to place the student privately at public expense before enrolling him; when Mother emailed in August 2023, the student was enrolled just five business days later — far short of the required 10 business days' notice; Parents did not give the district an opportunity to convene an IEP meeting to address their concerns; and the family no longer resided in the district during those school years.

Summer Camp Reimbursement — Denied: Reimbursement for two Kentucky dyslexia summer camps was denied because Parents gave no written notice of intent to seek reimbursement, and there was no evidence connecting the camps to the specific IEP deficiencies found (attention and executive functioning goals).

What Was Ordered

1. Capistrano Unified is NOT required to fund an independent educational evaluation in psychoeducation. The district's 2023 assessment was found legally adequate.

2. Capistrano Unified SHALL provide 20 hours of compensatory educational services in the areas of attention and executive functioning, to be delivered by a credentialed teacher or similarly qualified provider, at a rate not to exceed $200 per hour (total: up to $4,000).

3. Parents may choose the provider for these compensatory services.

4. The 20 hours must be used by December 31, 2026, or they are forfeited.

5. Capistrano Unified shall reimburse Parents within 45 days of receiving proof of payment (canceled checks or credit card statements) and proof of the student's attendance.

6. All other relief sought by the student — including tuition reimbursement, summer camp reimbursement, and IEE funding — is denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Residency is everything when claiming out-of-district services. This case illustrates how critical it is to maintain clear, documented ties to a school district if you want that district to remain responsible for your child's FAPE. If you relocate — even temporarily — the district can argue it is no longer responsible. California courts look at intent to remain, not just legal documents like driver's licenses or real estate licenses.

2. You must give written notice before placing your child privately if you want reimbursement. Federal law requires at least 10 business days' written notice to the district before removing your child from public school and enrolling them privately at public expense. Sending an email and enrolling five days later — as happened here — is not enough. This notice requirement is strictly enforced and can be the sole reason reimbursement is denied even if the district failed your child.

3. An IEP that fails to translate assessment data into goals can still be a FAPE denial — even if the assessment itself was adequate. The district here properly assessed attention and executive functioning needs but then failed to write goals targeting those needs. That disconnect is a compensable FAPE violation even when the overall assessment is found to be legally compliant.

4. Districts can defend their assessments in due process, and if they win, you lose IEE funding. If you disagree with a district assessment and request an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the district can file for due process to defend its assessment. If the ALJ finds the district's assessment was appropriate, you will not receive public funding for your private evaluation — even if you already paid for it.

5. Compensatory education is tailored to what was actually missed — not a blanket award. The ALJ awarded 20 hours specifically because that matched the services the district should have provided from consent (March 2023) through the end of the school year. And no compensatory services were ordered for self-advocacy because the student had already improved in that area by the time of the hearing. If your child has improved in an area, that may limit or eliminate compensatory relief for it — document ongoing deficits carefully.