District Wins Right to Assess Student Over Father's Repeated Refusal

Anaheim Elementary School District filed for due process after Student's father repeatedly refused to consent to a mandatory three-year reassessment. The ALJ ruled that the district had made reasonable efforts to obtain consent and that the reassessment was legally required. The district was granted permission to assess Student without parental consent in academic achievement, health, intellectual development, and social-emotional/behavioral areas.

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old sixth grader who had been receiving special education services since 2017 under the categories of Other Health Impairment (OHI) and Specific Learning Disability (SLD). Student originally attended school in Chino Valley Unified School District, where a three-year reassessment was completed in 2022. That assessment identified ongoing needs in attention, written expression, and academic achievement. When Student moved to Father's residence and enrolled in Anaheim Elementary School District in 2023, the district created an interim IEP based on the prior Chino Valley plan, which Father initially consented to. However, Father soon expressed that he did not believe Student needed special education services and repeatedly refused to consent to a new three-year reassessment — which was legally overdue by January 2025.

Anaheim Elementary made numerous attempts over several months to obtain parental consent: emails, phone calls, text messages, in-person conversations, mailed prior written notices, and discussions at an IEP team meeting. Father signed the assessment plan twice — both times marking that he did not consent. Mother did not respond at all. Father also indicated at points that he wanted Student exited from special education, but never submitted a formal written revocation of consent to services as required by law. Because the district had never conducted its own assessment of Student, and because the mandatory three-year reassessment window had passed, Anaheim Elementary filed for due process to obtain permission to assess Student without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. The hearing officer found that the January 17, 2025 assessment plan was legally sound — it clearly identified the areas to be assessed, explained the purpose of the reassessment, listed the qualifications of the assessors, and informed Parents of their rights. The assessors assigned — a credentialed school psychologist, a special education resource teacher, and a credentialed school nurse — were all qualified to conduct their respective portions of the assessment.

The ALJ also found that the reassessment was genuinely necessary. Student's last formal assessment was conducted in 2022 by a different district, in a COVID-era environment that included virtual testing and masking — conditions that could affect the validity of results. Student was approaching middle school and a transition IEP meeting was required. Teachers had observed possible signs of sadness, which had not been explored in prior assessments. And critically, Father's own desire to exit Student from special education actually required the IEP team to have current data — a district cannot simply remove a student from special education based on a parent's verbal request without a formal evaluation supporting that decision.

The ALJ further found that Father's refusal to consent did not constitute a valid written revocation of special education services, and that the district had made more than reasonable efforts to obtain consent before filing for due process.

What Was Ordered

Anaheim Elementary may assess Student pursuant to the January 17, 2025 assessment plan without parental consent.
The district must notify Parents within 15 business days of the decision of the scheduled dates, times, and locations for assessments.
Parents must cooperate in making Student available for assessments.
Parents must timely complete and return any documents reasonably requested as part of the assessment process.
If Parents fail to make Student available or materially fail to cooperate, the district will no longer be required to provide Student with special education and related services.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot simply say "no" to a three-year reassessment and have your child remain in special education. Federal and state law require reassessments at least every three years. If you want your child to continue receiving services, the district has the legal right to conduct that reassessment — and if you refuse consent, they can go to a hearing to override your refusal.
If you want your child exited from special education, there is a formal process. Telling a teacher verbally or even signing an assessment plan with "I decline" is not a valid revocation of consent to special education services. You must submit a formal, written revocation directly to the district. This case shows what can happen when parents try to exit their child informally — the district ends up in due process.
A reassessment from another district, years ago, is not enough to protect your child's current placement. Because Student's last assessment was done in 2022 by a different district under unusual pandemic conditions, the district had legitimate grounds to conduct its own updated evaluation. Parents should understand that districts are not bound by another district's old testing.
Districts can — and will — file due process against parents. Most parents think of due process as a tool for families. But districts can also file to overcome a parent's refusal. If the district can show it made reasonable efforts and the assessment is legally required, courts and ALJs will side with the district. Engaging with the process early — asking questions, requesting meetings, or seeking an advocate — is far better than simply refusing to respond.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Anaheim Elementary may assess Student pursuant to the January 17, 2025 assessment plan without parental consent.
The district must notify Parents within 15 business days of the decision of the scheduled dates, times, and locations for assessments.
Parents must cooperate in making Student available for assessments.
Parents must timely complete and return any documents reasonably requested as part of the assessment process.
If Parents fail to make Student available or materially fail to cooperate, the district will no longer be required to provide Student with special education and related services.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot simply say "no" to a three-year reassessment and have your child remain in special education. Federal and state law require reassessments at least every three years. If you want your child to continue receiving services, the district has the legal right to conduct that reassessment — and if you refuse consent, they can go to a hearing to override your refusal.
If you want your child exited from special education, there is a formal process. Telling a teacher verbally or even signing an assessment plan with "I decline" is not a valid revocation of consent to special education services. You must submit a formal, written revocation directly to the district. This case shows what can happen when parents try to exit their child informally — the district ends up in due process.
A reassessment from another district, years ago, is not enough to protect your child's current placement. Because Student's last assessment was done in 2022 by a different district under unusual pandemic conditions, the district had legitimate grounds to conduct its own updated evaluation. Parents should understand that districts are not bound by another district's old testing.
Districts can — and will — file due process against parents. Most parents think of due process as a tool for families. But districts can also file to overcome a parent's refusal. If the district can show it made reasonable efforts and the assessment is legally required, courts and ALJs will side with the district. Engaging with the process early — asking questions, requesting meetings, or seeking an advocate — is far better than simply refusing to respond.