District Refused Assessment Request and Left Student Without Services for Five Months

What Happened

A 13-year-old student with ADHD had been receiving accommodations through a 504 Plan since second grade. When he transitioned from elementary school (Del Mar Union School District) to middle school (San Dieguito Union High School District) for seventh grade in fall 2021, his struggles intensified significantly.

The parent emailed school staff repeatedly through August, September, and October 2021, describing worsening symptoms. The student reported he "can't follow directions" and was "constantly relying on classmates." He was having "meltdowns" at home. His homeroom teacher, Honselaar, observed the student having an "emotional break" by November 2021 — he seemed "out of place" and "defeated" in her class.

On December 5, 2021, the parent formally requested a neuroeducational assessment in writing. On December 20, San Dieguito's assistant principal issued a prior written notice refusing to assess. The district's position was that the student's 504 Plan was working and that general education interventions should be tried first.

It was not until January 24, 2022 — after the parent hired an attorney who contacted the district — that San Dieguito finally agreed to assess the student. The assessment ultimately found the student eligible for special education under other health impairment. An IEP was developed through three meetings spanning April to May 2022, offering 120 minutes per month of counseling, 230 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction, and 450 minutes per year of speech and language services.

The result: the student went without special education services for more than five months after the assessment plan should have been presented.

What the District Did Wrong

Refusing to Assess Despite Clear Warning Signs

By December 2021, San Dieguito had overwhelming evidence that the student needed to be assessed for special education. His last psychoeducational assessment was two years old. Both parents testified he was exhibiting signs of depression and anxiety, had lost self-esteem, and had no enthusiasm to attend school. His teacher reported an "emotional break." Parent emails documented escalating difficulties.

Despite all this, the district refused the parent's assessment request, claiming the 504 Plan was sufficient. The ALJ found this refusal violated the IDEA:

"By December 5, 2021, San Dieguito had sufficient data to develop an assessment plan after Parent's referral. Student's last psychoeducational assessment was two years old. Both parents testified that by November 2021, Student was exhibiting signs of depression and anxiety, had lost self-esteem, and had no enthusiasm to attend school."

Failing the 15-Day Timeline

California law requires districts to develop an assessment plan within 15 calendar days of an assessment referral. San Dieguito not only failed to develop an assessment plan within 15 days — it refused to assess at all. The district only reversed its position after the parent obtained legal representation, more than a month later.

What the Judge Found

ALJ Brian H. Krikorian issued a mixed decision across four issues:

Issue 1 (Child Find): San Dieguito did not fail in its child find obligations at the start of the school year. The student had already been identified as a child with a disability through Del Mar Union, and San Dieguito took steps to address his needs through the 504 Plan. The district prevailed.

Issue 2 (Assessment Plan Delay): San Dieguito denied FAPE by failing to timely present an assessment plan after the parent's December 2021 request. The delay was a procedural and substantive violation because it resulted in a five-month delay in services. The student prevailed.

"Student proved San Dieguito failed to develop an assessment plan for Student within 15 days of when Parent requested an assessment referral on December 5, 2021."

Issue 3 (IEP Timeline): Once the assessment process began in January 2022, San Dieguito completed the assessment within 60 days and held the IEP meetings in a timely fashion. The scheduling delays were partly at the request of the parent's counsel. The district prevailed.

Issue 4 (Discrimination): The student did not prove discrimination under the IDEA. The district prevailed.

What Was Ordered

The ALJ calculated compensatory services based on the 12 school days of delay attributable solely to the district (the gap between when the district should have accepted the referral on December 20, 2021, and when it actually agreed to assess on January 24, 2022):

1. 552 minutes of compensatory academic instruction — equivalent to 12 school days at the IEP rate of 230 minutes per week

2. One hour of compensatory speech and language services

3. One hour of compensatory counseling services

4. San Dieguito must provide parents with a choice of three nonpublic agencies that provide academic, speech and language, and counseling services, and fund the compensatory services from a certified nonpublic agency

5. Services available until December 31, 2024

Why This Matters for Parents

This case is a textbook example of what happens when a district refuses a parent's assessment request and then reverses course only after the parent hires an attorney.

1. A 504 Plan is not a reason to deny assessment. The fact that a student has a 504 Plan does not excuse the district from its obligation to assess for special education when there is reason to suspect the student needs more support. If a 504 Plan is not adequately addressing your child's needs, request a special education assessment in writing.

2. The 15-day timeline starts from your request. Under Education Code section 56043(a), the district must present an assessment plan within 15 calendar days of your referral. If the district denies your request, it must issue a prior written notice explaining why — but a denial does not stop the clock.

3. Getting an attorney changed the outcome. The district refused the parent's request in December but agreed to assess in January after the parent's attorney got involved. While you should not need a lawyer to exercise your rights, this case illustrates the practical reality that district decisions can sometimes be influenced by legal representation.

4. Document the emotional impact. The parent's descriptions of the student's depression, anxiety, and "meltdowns" — corroborated by the teacher's observation of an "emotional break" — were critical evidence. When your child is struggling, document what you see at home in emails to the school so there is a contemporaneous record.

5. Even a modest delay produces compensatory services. The ALJ calculated that only 12 school days of delay were attributable solely to the district, but still awarded compensatory services in three areas. Every day a student goes without needed services matters.

If your district refuses to assess your child and claims a 504 Plan is sufficient, send a follow-up letter citing Timothy O. v. Paso Robles and the 15-day timeline in Education Code section 56043. Note the date of your request and state that the district's refusal does not toll the statutory timeline.