Del Mar Union Prevails: District's Preschool Assessment and IEP Offer Upheld

A parent filed due process against Del Mar Union School District challenging the district's initial evaluation and IEP for her three-year-old child, who had speech delays and behavioral concerns. The parent, representing herself, raised 14 issues including inadequate assessments, inappropriate eligibility decisions, predetermination, and failure to offer occupational therapy, behavioral services, and extended school year. ALJ Judith Pasewark ruled in the district's favor on all 14 issues, finding the assessments legally adequate and the IEP's offer of speech and language services appropriate.

What Happened

Student was a three-year-old attending a private preschool (KinderCare) who had been receiving speech therapy, occupational therapy, and infant education through the San Diego Regional Center. A private neuropsychological evaluation from Rady Children's Hospital conducted in March 2025 found Student had average cognitive abilities but below-average adaptive functioning, communication delays, and behavioral difficulties including aggression and sensory-seeking behaviors. Importantly, that evaluation did not find Student met the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. The hospital recommended Student receive a school district evaluation to determine eligibility for special education services.

Del Mar Union conducted a multidisciplinary assessment and held an initial IEP meeting across three sessions in May 2025, one day before Student's third birthday. The district found Student eligible for special education only under the category of speech or language impairment and offered 30 minutes of group speech therapy twice per week. Parent, representing herself, rejected the entire IEP and filed for due process, raising 14 separate challenges. These included claims that assessments were flawed, that the district should have found Student eligible under additional categories (other health impairment and emotional disability), that the district predetermined its decisions, that more goals and services were needed, and that Parent was denied meaningful participation by being refused access to test protocols.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on all 14 issues. On assessments, the ALJ found the district's team of a school psychologist, education specialist, and speech-language pathologist were qualified professionals who used appropriate, valid tools and followed proper procedures. The ALJ noted that while parents are equal members of the IEP team, they do not get to choose the assessment tools — that decision belongs to the school district. The ALJ also pointed out that the district had already agreed to fund independent assessments before the hearing even began, which further undercut the claim that the district's evaluations were legally deficient.

On eligibility, the ALJ found the district was not required to find Student eligible under other health impairment or emotional disability when the evidence did not support those categories. Student's behaviors were consistently described by multiple professionals as stemming from communication frustration, not a separate emotional or health condition, and the private neuropsychological evaluation itself did not diagnose Student with autism or any qualifying condition. On parental participation, the ALJ found that although Parent was denied access to raw test protocols, the district was not legally required to provide them — protocols are not considered part of a student's educational record under the law, and the district gave Parent all standardized scoring information and manufacturer documentation. On extended school year, the ALJ found there was no meaningful data showing Student experienced the kind of significant regression that would require summer services. On placement, the ALJ found no evidence supported placing Student in a more restrictive setting like a special day class, especially since Student was already functioning in a general education preschool.

The ALJ was direct in noting that Parent's passionate observations about Student's behaviors, while credible as observations, were not sufficient by themselves to prove legal violations. A description of challenging behaviors does not automatically establish that a district's IEP is wrong.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied on all 14 issues. No compensatory education, additional assessments, revised IEP goals, expanded services, or placement changes were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Describing behaviors is not enough — you need professional evidence. The ALJ repeatedly found that Parent's firsthand observations of Student's aggression, sensory issues, and emotional dysregulation were credible, but were not sufficient to prove the district's IEP was legally inadequate. To successfully challenge a district's decisions, parents typically need expert witnesses — such as independent evaluators, behaviorists, or therapists — who can translate those observations into professional opinions about what services are required.
If you disagree with a district assessment, your clearest legal path is requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). The law gives parents the right to request a publicly funded independent evaluation when they disagree with the district's assessment. In this case, the district agreed to fund independent assessments before the hearing concluded. Pursuing that route — rather than (or in addition to) due process — can be a more efficient way to get the information needed to change an IEP.
Districts are not required to share raw test protocols with parents. The ALJ found that test protocols (the actual scored test booklets and assessor notes) are not part of a student's educational record and do not have to be turned over to parents. Parents do have the right to see assessment reports and all information used to make eligibility and IEP decisions, but the underlying testing materials themselves are a different matter under current law.
Extended school year services require specific, documented evidence of significant regression. A general concern that a child loses skills over breaks is not enough. The ALJ found that without data showing how Student performed in an educational setting and how long it took to recover lost skills, there was no basis to order ESY. Parents seeking ESY should document regression carefully — with examples, dates, and how long recovery took — before or during the IEP process.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied on all 14 issues. No compensatory education, additional assessments, revised IEP goals, expanded services, or placement changes were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Describing behaviors is not enough — you need professional evidence. The ALJ repeatedly found that Parent's firsthand observations of Student's aggression, sensory issues, and emotional dysregulation were credible, but were not sufficient to prove the district's IEP was legally inadequate. To successfully challenge a district's decisions, parents typically need expert witnesses — such as independent evaluators, behaviorists, or therapists — who can translate those observations into professional opinions about what services are required.
If you disagree with a district assessment, your clearest legal path is requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). The law gives parents the right to request a publicly funded independent evaluation when they disagree with the district's assessment. In this case, the district agreed to fund independent assessments before the hearing concluded. Pursuing that route — rather than (or in addition to) due process — can be a more efficient way to get the information needed to change an IEP.
Districts are not required to share raw test protocols with parents. The ALJ found that test protocols (the actual scored test booklets and assessor notes) are not part of a student's educational record and do not have to be turned over to parents. Parents do have the right to see assessment reports and all information used to make eligibility and IEP decisions, but the underlying testing materials themselves are a different matter under current law.
Extended school year services require specific, documented evidence of significant regression. A general concern that a child loses skills over breaks is not enough. The ALJ found that without data showing how Student performed in an educational setting and how long it took to recover lost skills, there was no basis to order ESY. Parents seeking ESY should document regression carefully — with examples, dates, and how long recovery took — before or during the IEP process.