Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

V.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

CASE NO. 2025070645

DECISION

December 8, 2025 Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, on July 17, 2025, naming Los Angeles Unified School District, called Los Angeles.

Administrative Law Judge Deborah Myers-Cregar heard this matter by videoconference on September 3, 9, 10, and October 14, 2025.

Attorney Scott Ayers represented Student. Parent attended all hearing days on Student’s behalf. Attorney Cristina Cruz represented Los Angeles. Genetha Hicks Cleveland, Los Angeles’ special education administrator, attended all hearing days on Los Angeles’ behalf.

Accessibility Modified

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to November 17, 2025, for written closing briefs, when the record was closed, and the matter was submitted.

ISSUES

A free appropriate public education is called FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.

1. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE by not having an individual with knowledge of placements at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting?

2. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting by predetermining the placement offer?

3. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year and 2026 extended school year, by failing to offer:

a. a non-public school placement;

b. behavior intervention development services;

c. behavior intervention aides;

d. assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication services;

e. occupational therapy services;

f. speech and language services;

g. adapted physical education services; and h. accommodations?

Accessibility Modified

At the hearing, Student withdrew Issue 1b regarding Los Angeles’ alleged failure to offer transportation to the non-public school with a transportation aide. At the prehearing conference, Student withdrew Issue 4 regarding Los Angeles’ alleged failure to make a clear offer of services. The issues have been re-ordered and clarified as allowed by the holding in J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443.

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, its regulations, and California statutes and regulations. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 (2006) et seq.; Ed. Code, § 56000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3000 et seq.) The main purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as the IDEA, are to ensure:

all children with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living, and the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1); see Ed. Code, § 56000, subd. (a).)

The IDEA affords parents and local educational agencies the procedural protection of an impartial due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to the identification, assessment, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a FAPE to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) & (f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511; Ed. Code,

Accessibility Modified

§§ 56501, 56502, and 56505; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082.) The party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consents, and has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i); Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 57-58, 62 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387]; and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) Here, Student filed the due process hearing request and bears the burden of proof. The factual statements in this Decision constitute the written findings of fact required by the IDEA and state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(5).) At the time of the hearing, Student was 10 years old and had completed fifth grade. She resided within Los Angeles’ geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under the primary category of autism spectrum disorder. She is non-verbal, uses limited sign language, and makes vocalizations. Student communicates with an augmentative and alternative communication device, applications on Parent’s phone, and the keyboard on their tablet. Student has a history of aggressive behavior including hitting with open and closed hands, kicking, pulling hair, and eloping, which means running away from a supervised area without permission. Student has insomnia and sleep disturbances that result in frequent school absences. As described below, Los Angeles provided Student with a temporary home hospital instruction program approximately October 1, 2024, through June 10, 2025, the last instructional day and the end of the 2024-2025 school year. The home hospital instruction program provides academic instruction and services in a student’s home. Student has not attended any school program for the 2025-2026 school year because

Accessibility Modified the parties have not agreed to a specific non-public school. Student seeks placement at a preferred non-public school, the Academy for the Advancement of Children with Autism.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On October 1, 2024, Student entered into a settlement agreement with Los Angeles, dismissing OAH case number 2024070022, and waiving educational claims through October 1, 2024. Parent consented to the June 3, 2024 IEP, as modified by the agreement. The June 3, 2024 IEP included a behavior intervention plan and offered Student placement at a non-public school.

For the 2024-2025 school year, the parties agreed to Student being temporarily placed with Los Angeles’ home hospital instruction program, with five hours of educational services per week. This compromise provided Student with athome services, which was Parent’s preferred placement at the time. This was not a stayput placement, meaning the placement was not agreed to by the IEP team, was not part of her IEP, and her educational placement terminated at the end of the school year by contract.

Student would receive 60 minutes per week each of speech and language and occupational therapy services. Student would receive 10 hours per week of behavior intervention development, and 10 hours per week of behavior intervention implementation through a non-public agency. The behavior intervention development analyzed the function of Student’s behavior, and theorized behavior support strategies to promote a decrease in maladaptive behavior. The parties agreed to compensatory

Accessibility Modified specialized academic support, speech and language services, and occupational therapy services by a non-public agency. The settlement agreement was incorporated into Student’s November 1, 2024 IEP.

Finally, the settlement agreement extended the timeline for Student’s three-year reassessment review, to begin on February 3, 2025. Los Angeles and Parent agreed to assess Student in psychoeducation, health, academics, speech and language including augmentative and alternative communication, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education.

The parties agreed to hold an IEP team meeting after the assessments were completed to discuss placement, services, supports, and accommodations for the 2025-2026 school year.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

APRIL 25, AND MAY 9, 2025 IEP TEAM MEETING STIPULATIONS

Prior to hearing, the parties stipulated in writing to key components of Student’s educational program. The written stipulation was entered into evidence at the due process hearing. The stipulation confirmed Student’s eligibility for special education services under the category of autism spectrum disorder. The parties stipulated Los Angeles completed accurate assessments in psychoeducation, functional behavior, academics, speech and language with augmentative and alternative communication, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education.

These assessments were presented and reviewed at IEP team meetings held on April 25, and May 9, 2025.

The parties stipulated that on April 25, and May 9, 2025, the IEP team met to develop Student’s educational program. The May 9, 2025 IEP team unanimously agreed to annual goals in academics, behavior, speech and language,

Accessibility Modified occupational therapy, and adapted physical education.

The May 9, 2025 IEP team unanimously agreed that a non-public school placement was the most appropriate placement for Student.

APPLICABLE TIMELINES AFTER THE MAY 9, 2025, IEP TEAM MEETING

On May 14, 2025, Los Angeles gave Parent two referrals to non-public schools and gave notice of the June 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. Parent and her attorney refused to attend the June 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, so Los Angeles did not proceed with the meeting.

On June 10, 2025, the 2024-2025 instructional school year ended. On July 17, 2025, Student’s attorney filed this due process hearing request. Any meetings which occurred after Student’s due process complaint was filed falls outside the scope of this hearing. The due process hearing began on September 3, 2025.

Student challenges Los Angeles’ process of recessing the IEP team meeting to explore non-public school options with its specialized unit, the non-public school office. Student challenges Los Angeles’ non-public school office’s referral process, which provides parents with a short list of contracted state certified non-public schools for potential enrollment, after the IEP team meeting where non-public school is offered as a placement.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 1: DID LOS ANGELES DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY NOT HAVING AN

INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE OF PLACEMENTS AT THE MAY 9, 2025 IEP

TEAM MEETING?

Student alleges Los Angeles failed to have all mandatory IEP team members at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting because the non-public schools program specialist was a mandatory member of the IEP team but was not present. Student claims Parent was prevented from discussing the specific advantages and disadvantages of the non-public school placements offered. Student does not assert that any other mandatory IEP team members were absent.

Los Angeles asserts all mandatory IEP team members attended the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. Los Angeles asserts its administrator Carmen Tejada had knowledge and expertise about Los Angeles’ process for exploring non-public school placements for students identified by IEPs as requiring such placement. As discussed in more detail below, this process involved providing parents appropriate referrals for potential non-public school placements and reconvening a student’s IEP team meeting to make a formal placement offer once the parent had the opportunity to explore, visit, and select a specific non-public school.

A FAPE means special education and related services that are available to an eligible child that meets state educational standards at no charge to the parent or guardian. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.) Parents and school personnel develop an IEP for an eligible student based upon state law and the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d)(1); and see Ed. Code, §§ 56031, 56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a), and 56363, subd. (a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321, and 300.501.)

Accessibility Modified

In general, a child eligible for special education must be provided access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit through an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. (Board of Education of the

Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 201-204; Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000].) The public agency must ensure that the IEP team includes:

the student’s parents;

a general education teacher;

the student’s special education teacher;

district personnel qualified to provide or supervise specially designed instruction;

an individual qualified to interpret evaluations; and at the discretion of the parent or the local education agency, other individuals that have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate.

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(i)(vi); 34 C.F.R. § 300.321; Ed. Code, 56341, subd. (b).) The determination of whether an individual has knowledge or special expertise shall be made by the party who invites the individual to be a member of the IEP team. (34 C.F.R. § 300.321(c); Ed. Code, § 56341, subd. (b)(6).)

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

THE NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM SPECIALIST WAS NOT A

MANDATORY IEP TEAM MEMBER REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE MAY 9,

2025 IEP TEAM MEETING

Student failed to meet her burden of proving that a representative from Los Angeles’ non-public schools program was a mandatory IEP team member. The May 9, 2025 IEP included all mandatory IEP team members. The following people attended the meeting:

Parent,

Student’s attorney Scott Ayers,

Los Angeles administrator Carmen Tejada, special education teacher Gladys Donan, general education teacher Karen Murray, school psychologist Jessica Perez, school nurse Ciana Perez, speech and language service provider Jennifer Vo, occupational therapy service provider Irene Mendoza, adapted physical education provider Peter Sachyar, behaviorist Joanna Benitez, and home hospital instruction teacher Karen Fernandez.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

Carmen Tejada, Los Angeles’ assistant principal and elementary instructional specialist, facilitated the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. Tejada held a multi-subject clear credential and a professional clear special education credential. Tejada was responsible for supervising special education compliance and leading IEP team meetings. Tejada was qualified to provide or supervise specially designed instruction. She was also knowledgeable about Los Angeles’ programs and the process of exploring non-public school options. Tejada was well qualified to answer Parent’s questions about Los Angeles’ non-public school referral process, refer Student to the specialists at the non-public schools’ office, and reconvene the IEP team meeting to discuss and finalize Los Angeles’ placement offer.

Tejada persuasively testified about Los Angeles’ process for exploring non-public school placement options. Once the IEP team determined a child required a non-public school placement, the IEP team meeting would recess to explore Student’s acceptance in a non-public school.

Tejada explained this process to Parent. The non-public schools office would send several contracted, non-public schools’ referrals. Parent would need to tour and apply to the contracted schools. Once Student was accepted by a specific school, the IEP team would reconvene to discuss whether the placement was a good match. The IEP team would discuss service minutes, based on the non-public school program. The IEP team would discuss how Student’s services would be delivered appropriately. Tejada explained to Parent that more data was needed before the IEP team could recommend placement and services. Tejada offered to reconvene on June 9, 2025. In response, Parent and her attorney made a demand for immediate placement at their preferred non-public school, and left the IEP team meeting.

Accessibility Modified

Tejada was knowledgeable about the ‘explore non-public school placement options’ process at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. Tejada explained the process and was available to answer questions. A non-public school representative was not a mandatory IEP team member. Additionally, having a non-public school program specialist at the IEP team meeting would not have provided Parents with any more information than Tejada provided.

Student did not prove that a Los Angeles non-public school representative was a mandatory member of the May 9, 2025 IEP team. Student also did not prove the absence of a non-public school representative from the meeting denied meaningful parental participation. As discussed, Parent and Student’s attorney actively participated in the discussion at the IEP team meeting, and Tejada was present to answer any questions they had about the non-public school referral process.

Therefore, Student did not meet her burden of proving Los Angeles denied her a FAPE by not including a non-public school program specialist as a mandatory member of the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting.

Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 1.

ISSUE 2: DID LOS ANGELES DENY STUDENT A FAPE AT THE MAY 9, 2025

IEP TEAM MEETING BY PREDETERMINING PLACEMENT?

Student asserts Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE by predetermining its offer of a non-public school at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. Student alleges administrator Tejada came to the IEP team meeting with a strict agenda from which she would not deviate. Student alleges Los Angeles predetermined that it would not offer placement and services until it knew which non-public school program accepted Student. Student Accessibility Modified further asserts Los Angeles should have offered the non-public school Parent preferred, and by not doing so, meant Los Angeles did not come to the IEP team meeting with an open mind. Student asserts Los Angeles’ actions denied Parent the right to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.

Los Angeles asserts it did not make a placement offer at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, because it had to explore appropriate non-public school options. Los Angeles recessed the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting for the purpose of identifying non-public school placements and providing Student and Parent an opportunity to tour and apply in the identified non-public school placements. Los Angeles planned to reconvene the IEP team meeting on June 9, 2025, to make its placement offer, but Parent refused to attend. Los Angeles asserts that it provided the opportunity to meaningfully participate when its program specialists contacted parent and provided two possible placements. Los Angeles asserts Parent prevented it from making an offer, and Parent had a take it or leave it approach for a preferred placement. The IDEA requires school districts to ensure that the parents of disabled children are members of any group that makes decisions about their child's educational placement. (34 C.F.R. § 300.327 (2006); 34 C.F.R. § 300.501 subd. (c)(1) (2006).) A parent has meaningfully participated in the development of an IEP when he or she is informed of the child’s problems, attends the IEP team meeting, expresses disagreement regarding the IEP team’s conclusions, and requests revisions in the IEP. (N.L. v. Knox County Schs. (6th Cir. 2003) 315 F.3d 688, 693-695 (N.L.); Fuhrmann v.

East Hanover Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1036 (Fuhrmann) [parent who has an opportunity to discuss a proposed IEP and whose concerns are considered by the IEP team has participated in the IEP process in a meaningful way].)

Accessibility Modified

School districts may not unilaterally predetermine a child’s special education and related services before an IEP team meeting. (Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of

Educ. (6th Cir. 2004) 392 F.3d 840, 858., cert. denied, 546 U.S. 936 (U.S. 2005).) School administrators and staff must enter the IEP team meeting with an open mind and must meaningfully consider the parents' input. (H.B., et al. v. Las Virgenes Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2007) 239 Fed. Appx. 342, 344; see also, Ms. S. ex rel G. v. Vashon Island Sch.

Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 1131.) A district may not arrive at an IEP team meeting with a "take it or leave it" offer. (JG v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2008), 552 F.3d 786, 801, fn. 10.)

However, school officials do not predetermine an IEP simply by meeting to discuss a child's programming in advance of an IEP team meeting. (N.L., supra, 315 F.3d 688 at p. 693, fn. 3.) District IEP team members also may form opinions before IEP team meetings. However, if the district goes beyond forming opinions and becomes “impermissibly and deeply wedded to a single course of action,” this amounts to predetermination. (P.C. v. Milford Exempted Village Schs (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 17, 2013, No. 1:11- CV-398) 2013 WL 209478, p.7.) A district's predetermination of an IEP seriously infringes on parental participation in the IEP process, which constitutes a procedural FAPE denial. (Deal, supra, 392 F.3d 840, 858.)

A school district is required to engage in open discussions of a student’s educational program and show a willingness to discuss options suggested by parents. (Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P. (9th Cir. 2012) 689 F.3d 1047, 1054-1055 (Anchorage).) Although school districts are permitted to form opinions and compile reports prior to an IEP team meeting, this conduct is only harmless provided the school officials are “willing

Accessibility Modified to listen to the parents.” (Knox County Sch., supra, 315 F.3d 693-694, fn. 3 (noting that school system representatives should “come to the meeting with suggestions and open minds, not a required course of action”).)

To avoid a finding of predetermination, there must be evidence the district has an open mind and might possibly be swayed by the parents' opinions and support for the IEP provisions they believe are necessary for their child. (See Deal, supra, 392 F.3d at p. 858; R.L. v. Miami-Dade County School Bd. (11th Cir. 2014) 757 F.3d 1173, 1188–1189.) This inquiry is fact intensive.

Before a school district places a student in a non-public school, or refers the student to a non-public or nonsectarian school, the district must conduct an IEP team meeting to develop the student’s educational program. (Ed. Code, § 56342.1.) An individual with exceptional needs cannot be referred to, or placed in, a non-public, nonsectarian school unless his or her IEP specifies that the placement is appropriate. (Ibid.)

LOS ANGELES’ NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL REFERRAL PROCESS

A non-public school is a private, nonsectarian school certified by the California Department of Education, called CDE. (Ed. Code, §§ 56034, 56366.1.) A non-public school must meet state standards to be certified by CDE. (Ed. Code, § 56034.) Non-public schools typically serve only special education students who could not be appropriately educated in the public school environment. Los Angeles contracted with non-public schools to deliver services to special education students as specified in their

Accessibility Modified

IEP. Non-public schools are private entities that set their own admissions criteria and have the right to refuse enrollment of a student if they believe they cannot meet the student’s needs.

To be accepted at a non-public school, a student and parent must participate in an interview, and the student must meet the non-public school’s admission criteria. Under Los Angeles’ guidelines, a non-public school cannot enroll a student prior to an IEP team meeting being held and an IEP being signed in agreement by the student’s parent or educational rights holder that identifies the non-public school as Los Angeles’ placement offer. The student retains the right to remain in his or her current placement until enrollment begins in a non-public school.

PARENT MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATED IN THE MAY 9, 2025 IEP

TEAM MEETING AND LOS ANGELES DID NOT PREDETERMINE

STUDENT’S PLACEMENT

Student did not prove Los Angeles predetermined the placement offer at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. The parties stipulated that during the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, the IEP team unanimously agreed that a non-public school placement was most appropriate for Student.

Student did not establish Tejada arrived with a pre-drafted agenda from which she refused to deviate. Tejada led the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, completing a logical sequence of procedural safeguards and tasks. Tejada guided the presenters of each assessment report, the development of goals in areas of unique needs, and the conclusion by the entire IEP team that a non-public school was the most appropriate

Accessibility Modified placement for Student. The IEP team decided not to address Student’s recommended services until the least restrictive environment discussions were complete, at the next meeting. Tejada allowed for Parent’s and Student attorney’s input. Los Angeles involved Parent during each step of the IEP process, including making decisions about Student’s placement. As discussed in Issue 1, Parent and Student’s attorney attended the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, along with teachers, related services providers, and administrator Tejada. Parent and Student’s attorney had the opportunity to ask questions, express disagreement, and request revisions to the IEP. For example, the IEP team meeting notes and audio recording, and the credible testimony of Los Angeles’ witnesses demonstrated that Student’s attorney actively spoke throughout the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, expressed concerns about Student, and made requests for more information. In fact, Student’s attorney spent over four minutes stating his demand for placement and related services. By the end of the meeting, Parent, along with the other IEP team members agreed Student required a placement change, specifically a non-public school.

To ensure Parent was involved in selecting an appropriate non-public school for Student, Los Angeles recessed the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting for the purpose of exploring a non-public school placement for Student. Los Angeles informed Parent that a non-public program specialist would research and provide a list of non-public schools that Parent could interview with and apply for admission if so desired. Los Angeles planned to reconvene another IEP team meeting on June 9, 2025, before the end of the school year, to allow time for the non-public school referral process. Los Angeles planned to make a complete offer of special education placement and services at the June 9, 2025 meeting. The instructional school year ended June 10, 2025.

Accessibility Modified

Los Angeles’ decision to refer Student’s IEP to its non-public school program specialists for further recommendations was not predetermination because it supported the discussion of appropriate placements for Student. Los Angeles’ decision to schedule another IEP team meeting within 30 days, before the end of the school year, was not predetermination because it provided the opportunity for Parent to tour, interview, and apply to recommended non-public schools. This process invited substantial collaboration with Parent and Student’s attorney to contribute to the discussions about Student’s placement options.

In sum, Student did not establish Los Angeles predetermined its placement offer at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting by not offering placement or services. Los Angeles reasonably needed to evaluate which non-public school program was appropriate and accepted Student before making a complete IEP offer. Los Angeles also reasonably needed to reconvene Student’s IEP team meeting once a non-public school had been identified to finalize its FAPE offer to Student. Unfortunately, as discussed below, Parent and Student’s attorney acted unreasonably when they refused to attend the June 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, and finish the IEP process.

STUDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PARENT’S PREFERRED

NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL PLACEMENT

At the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, Student’s attorney verbally objected to Los Angeles’ non-public school process, describing it as a “de facto illegal operation in policy and procedure” which violated state and federal law because the non-public school program specialist was not part of the IEP team, yet was responsible for recommending Student’s placement options. Student’s attorney challenged the IEP team’s ability to offer an appropriate placement.

Accessibility Modified

Instead, Student’s attorney demanded that the IEP team immediately write a placement offer for the Academy for the Advancement of Children with Autism, which did not have a master contract with Los Angeles.

Student’s attorney further unilaterally demanded related services, including their location, duration, and frequency, as follows:

assistive technology for 30 minutes weekly;

adapted physical education for 150 minutes per week;

occupational therapy consultation services for 20 minutes per month and direct services for 60 minutes per week;

speech and language services consultation for 30 minutes per month and direct group services 70 to 75 minutes per week;

behavior intervention development for 24 hours per month with two full time behavior intervention aides for 1,800 minutes per week; and accommodations.

The Academy for the Advancement of Children with Autism could conditionally admit Student into its program, under several conditions. First, Student’s IEP would need all the related services listed above. Second, Los Angeles would have to pay for Student’s attendance, program, and related services providers, even when Parents failed to give 24-hours’ notice of school absences. This was an issue because Student had attended that placement by settlement agreement and had missed 177 out of 209 school days during the 2023-2024 school year.

Accessibility Modified

The May 9, 2025 IEP team did not agree to Parent’s preferred non-public school or requested related services. In response, Parent and Student’s attorney stopped participating in the IEP process and filed the complaint in this case. Los Angeles did not predetermine Student’s placement when it did not agree to offer Parent’s preferred placement and services. Los Angeles acted reasonably when it offered to explore appropriate contracted, non-public, state certified schools. Los Angeles showed a willingness to discuss options suggested by Parent and planned to continue placement discussions at the June 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. However, it was Parent who did not participate in the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting with an open mind, and who withdrew from the IEP process in a “take it or leave it” manner. Student did not meet her burden of proving Los Angeles predetermined its placement offer in the May 9, 2025 IEP.

Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 2.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3: DID LOS ANGELES DENY STUDENT A FAPE FOR THE 2025-2026

SCHOOL YEAR AND 2026 EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR, BY FAILING TO

OFFER A NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL PLACEMENT, BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION AIDES, ASSISTIVE

TECHNOLOGY AND AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION

SERVICES, OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY SERVICES, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE

SERVICES, ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION SERVICES, AND

ACCOMMODATIONS?

Los Angeles’ alleged failure to make a clear offer of services, and alleged failure to offer transportation to the non-public school with a transportation aide, are no longer at issue.

The parties stipulated that the May 9, 2025, IEP team agreed that a non-public school placement was the most appropriate placement for Student. Student asserts Los Angeles’ process of exploring placement options, with its non-public schools office, violated state and federal law. Student asserts Los Angeles had an obligation to make an offer of placement and services at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, and failed to do so.

Student claims, as discussed in Issue 2, Los Angeles’ failure to make a specific offer deprived Parents of meaningful participation in the IEP process by denying their ability to provide input into the appropriate level of services and ask questions about appropriate placement options. Parent’s preferred placement was the Academy for the Advancement of Children with Autism.

Accessibility Modified

Los Angeles asserts Parent refused to participate in the IEP process which prevented it from finalizing its FAPE offer. Los Angeles asserts it diligently complied with IDEA procedures and acted in good faith to identify an appropriate placement. Los Angeles argues that its non-public school exploration process was a good faith attempt to collaboratively explore non-public schools with Parent, by providing referrals and scheduling a reconvened IEP team meeting to discuss placement and services. An IEP is a written document describing a child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, and a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s educational needs. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(1), (2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a) (2006).) The IEP must also contain a description of the manner in which the progress of the child toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the child is making will be provided. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(3) (2006).)

The IEP shall state the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the student and describe the program modifications and supports designed to enable the student to advance toward attaining their goals and make progress in the general education curriculum. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) (2006).) The IEP shall explain the extent, if any, that the student will not participate with nondisabled peers in the regular class or activities. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(5) (2006).) The IEP also must address any individual appropriate accommodations necessary to measure academic achievement and functional performance of the student on state and district-wide assessments. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(6).)

Accessibility Modified

The requirement that an IEP be written is not just a technicality; it is critical to implementation of a student’s program. An IEP must be in writing to be enforceable. “[A] discussion does not amount to an offer. [Student] could force the District to provide only those services and devices listed in the IEP, not those discussed at the IEP team meeting but left out of the IEP document. “ (M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High

Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199.) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated:

Parents must be able to use the IEP to monitor and enforce the services that their child is to receive. When parent is unaware of the services offered to student and, therefore, can’t monitor how these services are provided, a FAPE has been denied, whether or not parent had ample opportunity to participate in formulation of the IEP.

An IEP must be reviewed at least annually, to review and revise the student’s educational program. The school district must comply with notice and scheduling requirements. Nothing in this section precludes other IEP team meetings from occurring. (Ed. Code, § 56344, subd. (a)-(c).) “Working out an acceptable educational program must, in the end, be a cooperative effort between parents and school officials.” (Ryan K. v. Puyallup School District (9th Cir. 1994) 35 F.3d 1396, at page 1400 and footnote 5) (Puyallup).

Each public agency must have an IEP in effect for each child with a disability within its jurisdiction, at the beginning of each school year. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a)(2006); Ed. Code, § 56344, subd. (c).)

Accessibility Modified

The school district must take steps to ensure at least one parent participates in their child’s IEP team meeting. The IEP must be scheduled early enough to ensure parental attendance, at a mutually agreed-upon time and place. (Ed. Code, § 56345.5, subds. (a)-(c).)

The public agency must make reasonable efforts to obtain the parent’s informed consent before providing special education and related services. If the parent fails to respond to a request for consent, the local education agency may file for a due process hearing. (Ed. Code, §§ 56346, 56506, subds. (a)-(f).)

LOS ANGELES DID NOT COMPLETE THE IEP PROCESS BUT WAS NOT

REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF FAPE BECAUSE PARENT AND

STUDENT’S ATTORNEY IMPEDED THE IEP PROCESS

Los Angeles did not have an obligation to make an offer of FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year because the IEP process was not completed. As determined in Issue 2, Student did not prove Los Angeles prevented Parent from meaningfully participating in the IEP process. Instead, Parent willingly withdrew from the IEP process upon advice from Student’s attorney. Los Angeles gave Parent written notice of the June 9, 2025 IEP team meeting to complete its offer of placement and services for the 2025-2026 school year, but Parent refused to attend the meeting. The 2024-2025 instructional school year ended on June 10, 2025, the next day. Student’s attorney filed the complaint on July 17, 2025, when school was not in session.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

On May 14, 2025, Tejada sent Parent notice of the June 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. On May 14, 2025, Los Angeles’ non-public school program specialist Michelle Davis wrote a letter to Parent providing names and contact information for two contracted state certified non-public schools, IRL Almansor in South Pasadena, and IRL Westmoreland in Pasadena. [Driving distances and times from the family home to the referred schools redacted.] Davis’ referral letter directed Parent to arrange for an interview, and apply for Student’s admission. Davis reminded Parent to attend the reconvened IEP team meeting for the IEP team to consider these schools and name a specific placement that accepted Student. Davis invited Parent to contact her for assistance while exploring non-public school placement options. Parent received the notice of the IEP meeting and the referral letter identifying the two recommended schools. Parent searched the internet and believed the two schools were too far away from her home [distances redacted]. Parent decided not to contact Davis, or any IEP team members to discuss her concerns. Parent did not contact, tour, interview or apply at either school. Parent did not contact, tour, interview, or apply at any other non-public school. Parent believed there was no reason for her to attend that IEP team meeting as she had not started the process of touring the non-public schools.

The Ninth Circuit has stressed the cooperative process required under the IDEA. In a similar case, the student’s attorney abruptly ended the IEP team meeting and declared further negotiations would be pointless, instead of initiating discussions with the school. (Puyallup, supra, 35 F.3d 1396, at p. 1400 and footnote 5.) The attorney insisted that the parents leave the IEP team meeting immediately. The Ninth Circuit

Accessibility Modified opined, “working out an acceptable educational program must, in the end, be a cooperative effort between parents and school officials.” (Id. at p. 1400 and footnote 5.) If the attorney was concerned about waiving statutory rights by staying at the meeting, “he surely knew how to make a record indicating that the parents were staying under protest.” (Id. at p. 1400 and footnote 5.)

The Ninth Circuit held that the parents’ frustration about an absent IEP team member does “not justify the singularly counterproductive stance taken by their attorney” and that “such hard ball tactics are seldom productive.” (Id. at p. 1400 and footnote 5.) It reasoned that the litigation process is ill-advised in special education cases with the rapidly changing needs of children as “litigation tends to poison relationships and destroy channels for constructive dialogue.” Parents’ attorney’s “approach was rigid, it was one way only, ‘my way or the highway.’” ”When combat lines are so firmly drawn, the child’s interests are often damaged in the ensuing struggle.” (Id. at p. 1400 and footnote 5.)

Similarly, here, Student’s attorney demonstrated a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude toward Los Angeles’ efforts to explore non-public schools and collaborate at the June 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. Student’s attorney ended the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting by objecting to Los Angeles’ collaborative process of continuing the IEP team meeting and providing referrals to Parent to explore and tour schools. Parent and Student’s attorney did not contact Los Angeles to discuss their concerns about the recommended schools. They did not attend the June 9, 2025 IEP meeting. The instructional school year ended on June 10, 2025.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

Additionally, Student’s attorney doubled down by filing the subject due process complaint on July 17, 2025, when school was not in session. Once Student filed the due process complaint, she precluded Los Angeles from completing the IEP process. Student’s attorney was determined to push his agenda and demand placement at Parent’s preferred placement. This backfired when Parent chose to keep Student at home, without any educational program, during the due process proceedings. As in

Puyallup, Student’s attorney strategized for his combat lines to be so firmly drawn, risking damage to Student’s interests in the ensuing struggle. Student did not prove that Los Angeles prevented Parent from meaningfully participating in the IEP process by failing to make an offer of placement and related services for the 2025-2026 school year. Rather, Student’s attorney prevented Los Angeles from collaborating and continuing the IEP process to make an offer of FAPE, and opted for the litigation process instead.

Student failed to meet her burden of proof that Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year by failing to make an offer of placement and services before the end of the 2024-2025 school year.

Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 3.

CONCLUSIONS AND PREVAILING PARTY

As required by California Education Code section 56507, subdivision (d), the hearing decision must indicate the extent to which each party has prevailed on each issue heard and decided.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 1:

Los Angeles did not deny Student a FAPE by not having an individual with knowledge of placements at the May 9, 2025 IEP team meeting? Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 1.

ISSUE 2:

Los Angeles did not deny student a FAPE at the may 9, 2025 IEP team meeting by predetermining the placement offer.

Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3:

Los Angeles did not deny student a FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year and 2026 extended school year by failing to offer a non-public school placement;

behavior intervention development services;

behavior intervention aides;

assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication services;

occupational therapy services;

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified speech and language services;

adapted physical education services; and accommodations.

Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 3, subdivisions a through h.

RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION

This is a final administrative decision, and all parties are bound by it. Pursuant to Education Code section 56505, subdivision (k), any party may appeal this Decision to a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days of receipt.

Deborah Myers-Cregar Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

Accessibility Modified