Student v. Mountain View Los Altos High School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

V.

MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.

CASE NO. 2026031244

DECISION

September 28, 2026 On March 27, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Student, naming Mountain View Los Altos High School District, called Mountain View Los Altos. Parties’ request for mediation and continuance of the due process hearing was granted on April 28, 2026. Administrative Law Judge Tiffany Gilmartin heard this matter via videoconference on August 25, 26, and 27, 2026.

Parent represented Student. Parent attended the hearing on August 25 and 26, 2026. Parent did not attend on August 27, 2026. Attorneys Roxana Khan and Claire Gerard-Wimby represented Mountain View Los Altos. Jennifer Smith, Director of Special Education Services attended all hearing days on Mountain View Los Altos’ behalf.

Accessibility Modified

Before hearing, on the morning of August 27, 2026, at 8:43 AM, Parent contacted OAH and stated she was planning on submitting a dismissal of the case. Consistent with OAH’s policy, the case manager advised that absent a written dismissal, all parties are required to appear at the hearing. When the undersigned opened the record at 9:15 AM only attorneys and representative for Mountain View Los Altos were present. The undersigned read Parent’s message into the record as Mountain View Los Altos was not informed of Parent’s intention to dismiss.

The record was held open for 15 minutes to allow Parent an opportunity to appear. Parent did not appear, nor was a written dismissal received. At the end of the prior hearing day, on August 26, 2026, Mountain View Los Altos was in the middle of examining a witness. That witness was in the waiting room ready to complete his testimony. When Parent did not appear nor file a notice of withdrawal, the matter proceeded in Parent’s absence.

This is the second time Parent failed to appear for a scheduled proceeding in this matter. On August 7, 2026, an Order to Show Cause was issued by the undersigned after Parent failed to appear at the scheduled prehearing conference. At the August 14, 2026, prehearing conference, Parent was admonished that the matter could be dismissed for failure to prosecute if she failed to appear at future events. On August 27, 2026, however, the hearing had begun, witness testimony taken, and no withdrawal filed by Parent either in writing or in-person, thus the appropriate outcome was to consider the issues and make findings of facts and conclusions of law on whether the child received a FAPE. (N.R.

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

Accessibility Modified v. Del Mar Unified Sch. Dist., (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2023) 21-CV-01759-AJB_KSC; WL 853295 at *3). Mountain View Los Altos called its remaining witnesses on August 27, 2026. Mountain View Los Altos then gave an oral closing argument. At the conclusion of Mountain View Los Altos’ closing argument the record was closed, and the matter was submitted on August 27, 2026.

ISSUES

1. Did Mountain View Los Altos deny Student a free appropriate public education, FAPE, during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years, by:

a. Failing its Child Find obligation;

b. Failing to assess in all areas of suspected disability, specifically, autism, social-pragmatics, social-emotional regulation, and speech and language?

2. Did Mountain View Los Altos deny Student a FAPE during the 20242025 school year by failing to timely complete Student’s triennial re-evaluation?

3. Did Mountain View Los Altos deny Student a FAPE during the 20252026 school year, until March 27, 2026, by: a. Failing to assess Student for transition planning once he turned 18;

b. Failing to offer an appropriate transition plan;

Accessibility Modified c. Denying Parent’s meaningful participation in Student’s education by not providing proper notice of the IEP team meeting on March 4, 2026;

d. Not having all legally required members present at the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting?

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 free appropriate public education 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 free appropriate public education, referred to as FAPE, to the child. (20 U.S.C.

Accessibility Modified

§ 1415(b)(6) & (f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511; Ed. Code, §§ 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).) Student bore 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).) Student was 18 years old and a high school graduate at the time of hearing. Student resided within the Mountain View Los Altos’ geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under other health impairment.

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 individualized education program, referred to as 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.)

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

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].)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

As directed in the prehearing conference order, the first day of hearing focused solely on whether Student was able to establish an extension to the statute of limitations. Student and Mountain View Los Altos presented argument and evidence; thereafter the ALJ took the matter under submission, carefully considered the parties’ presentations, and took a recess. Upon reconvening, the ALJ ruled Student had not met his burden proving an exception to the statute of limitations existed or that it should be extended. Thus, Student was prohibited from presenting claims arising prior to March 27, 2024. Part of Student’s Issue 1, as it was pled, predated the two-year statute of limitations. Any claims arising prior to March 27, 2024, were barred pursuant to the ALJ findings. As noted in the prehearing conference order, the ALJ’s ruling regarding the statute of limitations would be more fully explained in this Decision.

Student argued Mountain View Los Altos withheld its concern about Student’s suspected autism from Parents during the April 6, 2023, triennial reassessment. Student argues the statute of limitation should be extended because Parents did not possess the (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified facts necessary to timely challenge any underlying violations of the IDEA, specifically, to determine Student was properly identified as a Student eligible for special education, comprehensively assessed, and appropriately served. Student further argued Parents did not consent to the February 13, 2023, assessment plan and the assessment plan did not clearly identify autism as an area of need to be assessed. Student also argued neither Parent attended the April 6, 2023, IEP where Student’s psychoeducational evaluation was discussed and Mountain View Los Altos proceeded without Parents. These failures in the aggregate Parent argued precluded her from timely challenging any potential FAPE violations. Mountain View Los Altos argued neither exception to the statute of limitations applied in this matter and that Parent was on notice of the facts underlying any potential FAPE claim.

The statute of limitations for filing of due process requests in California is two years, consistent with federal law. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C).) An action must be filed within two years from the date a party knew or had reason to know of the facts underlying the action. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l), see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C) (“knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint”).)

It does not matter if the parent understood that the inadequacy of student’s education constituted a legal claim, just that parent had knowledge of the problem forming the basis of a claim. Congress intended to obtain timely and appropriate education for special needs children. Congress did not intend to authorize the filing of claims under the IDEA many years after the alleged wrongdoing occurred. (Alexopulous

Accessibility Modified v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 551, 555.) “[A] cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.” (Id.)

EXCEPTIONS TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The law contains two express exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations. Those exceptions apply in cases where the parent was prevented from filing a request for due process because of specific misrepresentations made by the local educational agency that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint, or where the parent was prevented from filing for due process because the local educational agency withheld information from the parent that was required to be provided to the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D)(i) & (ii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l)(1) and (2).) The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed this rule. (Avila v. Spokane School Dist. 81 (2017) 852 F.3d 936.) Otherwise, the statute of limitations for due process complaints in California precludes claims that occurred more than two years prior to the date of filing the request for due process. Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C). (M.M. v. Lafayette School

District (9th Cir. 2014) 767 F.3d 842, 859.)

The evidence established Mountain View Los Altos conducted a psychoeducational assessment of Student and drafted a report dated April 6, 2023. This assessment was conducted by Joyce Kim, a credentialed school psychologist. Kim testified at hearing regarding her assessment. Her testimony was consistent with the evidence, without contradiction, and given great weight.

Accessibility Modified

As part of her assessment, Kim reviewed Student’s cumulative records including previous psychoeducational assessments conducted in 2017 and 2020. In 2020, Student completed the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, GARS, as part of his psychoeducational evaluation. Rating scales for the GARS were completed by both a parent and Student’s English Language Arts teacher. Student’s score on the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale indicated he had a probability of autism. Moreover, in 2023, Mountain View Los Altos reassessed Student for his triennial re-evaluation. As part of this reassessment, Kim provided rating scales for the Autism Spectrum Rating Scale assessment for Parents to complete. Father completed the rating scales. All of Father’s reported scores fell within the average range.

At the conclusion of Kim’s April 6, 2023, report, she reviewed special education eligibility criteria in three areas, other health impairment, specific learning disability, and autism. Kim determined Student qualified for special education under the category of other health impairment. Mountain View Los Altos reviewed this report at the April 6, 2023, IEP team meeting. Father is listed as present at the meeting. During testimony, Mother disputed Father’s attendance at the April 6, 2023, IEP team meeting. However, on May 14, 2023, both Parents acknowledged they received a copy of the Notice of Procedural Safeguards, a copy of the assessment report, a copy of the IEP, agreed with the determination of eligibility, and acknowledged they understood and consented to the contents of the IEP. The May 14, 2023, acknowledgements by both Parents negated any concern over Father’s disputed attendance.

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

Accessibility Modified

The evidence further established (a) Parents received copies of the procedural safeguards, (b) completed rating scales for autism assessments in two separate psychoeducational assessments 2020 and 2023, and (c) received a copy of Kim’s April 6, 2023, psychoeducational assessment report. In that report Kim specifically considered and ruled out autism as an eligibility category. That Parents later took Student for a private assessment where that assessor recommended Student meets the eligibility criteria for autism is not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. Parents had knowledge of Student’s suspected disability because they completed rating scales related to autism for two separate psychoeducational assessments in 2020 and 2023. Mother’s argument that Mountain View Los Altos withheld information from the Parents that was required to be provided to the Parents, and moreover, Mother did not understand the documents she received, is unpersuasive and contrary to the evidence received at hearing. As demonstrated at hearing, the April 6, 2023, psychoeducational assessment was not the first time Student was assessed for autism. Additionally, Kim gave her opinion that Student was not eligible for special education under the category of autism. Moreover, in 2023, an IEP team meeting was held where Student’s psychoeducational evaluation was reviewed including ruling out eligibility for special education under the category of autism. Both Parents acknowledged receipt of the procedural safeguards, assessment report, and IEP, and further agreed with the eligibility determination on May 14, 2023.

Mother also conflictingly argued she did not read Student’s psychoeducational reevaluation. All of Mother’s arguments are unpersuasive. Mother [parent's education and occupation redacted] is a savvy

Accessibility Modified communicator. Mother’s argument that she required an explicit warning about Student’s potential autism when he was assessed, and it was considered a potential eligibility category is unpersuasive. For the above reasons, Student failed to meet his burden of proving the two-year statute of limitations should be extended. Accordingly, Issue 1 was reorganized to dismiss the 2022-2023 school year and establish March 27, 2024, as the starting time for the remainder of Issue 1.

ISSUE 1a: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT FAIL TO MEET ITS CHILD

FIND OBLIGATION FROM MARCH 27, 2024, THROUGH THE END OF THE

2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR.

Student contends Mountain View Los Altos failed its child find obligation because Student was later assessed by a private assessor and diagnosed with autism. Parent contends this later assessment is prima facia evidence that Mountain View Los Altos failed its child find obligation of Student. Mountain View Los Altos contends it assessed Student for suspected disabilities and found Student eligible for special education in 2017. Since then Student received special education and related services until he graduated from high school in June 2026. Mountain View Los Altos contends its child find duty was fulfilled at all times relevant in this case.

School districts have an affirmative, ongoing duty to actively and systematically seek out, identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing within their boundaries who may be in need of special education and related services. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a)(2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56171, 56300 et seq.) This

Accessibility Modified ongoing duty is referred to as “child find,” which California has incorporated in its Education Code. (Ed. Code, § 56301, subds. (a), (b).) A school district’s appropriate inquiry is whether the child should be referred for an evaluation, not whether the child actually qualifies for services. (Ibid.)

Student was initially referred for special education in October 2016. Student was found eligible for special education and related services on May 8, 2017, in the category of other health impairment. Student remained eligible for special education through his 2020 and 2023 triennial reevaluations. Thus, Student was “found” within the meaning of the IDEA.

Student failed to meet his burden to establish Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE for failing to meet its child find obligation in the 2023-2024 school year from March 27, 2024. Student was already a Student eligible for special education and related services since 2017. No further obligation existed for Mountain View Los Altos as it related to child find in this instance.

Student did not meet his burden to demonstrate Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year by failing its child find obligation.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 1b: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT DENY STUDENT A

FAPE DURING THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR FROM MARCH 27, 2024,

BY FAILING TO ASSESS IN ALL AREAS OF SUSPECTED DISABILITY,

SPECIFICALLY, AUTISM, SOCIAL-PRAGMATICS, SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL

REGULATION, AND SPEECH AND LANGUAGE.

Student alleges Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE by failing to assess in all areas of suspected disability, specifically, autism, social-pragmatics, socialemotional regulation, and speech and language during the 2023-2024 school year from March 27, 2024. Mountain View Los Altos contends at all times prior to the 2023-2024 school year, it properly assessed Student in all areas of suspected disability. Mountain View Los Altos further contends, Student was properly re-assessed on April 6, 2023, for his triennial re-evaluation and there was no need for a reassessment nor a parental request for assessment to trigger a duty to reassess during the 2023-2024 school year from March 27, 2024.

The IDEA provides for periodic reevaluations to be conducted not more frequently than once a year unless the parents and District agree otherwise, but at least once every three years unless the parent and District agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b); Ed. Code § 56381, subd (a)(2).) A reassessment must be conducted if the local education agency “determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance of the pupil warrant a reassessment,” or “if the pupil’s parents or teacher requests a reassessment.” (20 U.S.C. § 1414 (a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii); 34 C.F.R § 300.303 (a)(1); Ed. Code § 56381, subd. (a)(1).)

Accessibility Modified

The evidence established Mountain View Los Altos completed a comprehensive reassessment of Student on April 6, 2023. On February 13, 2023, Kim provided Mother an assessment plan that proposed to assess Student in academics, health, intellectual development, speech and language, perceptual motor development, social and emotional development, behavior, and post-secondary transition..

The evidence further demonstrates Mountain View Los Altos extensively consulted Mother regarding the scheduling of the assessments during Student’s school day. Mountain View Los Altos completed a psychoeducational evaluation and speech and language evaluation as part of Student’s triennial re-assessment. The evidence demonstrated speech and language pathologist Lisa Black, who testified at the hearing, contacted Mother to address specific areas of concern as it related to Student’s pragmatic language and social skills. Black produced a report dated March 24, 2023. Black’s report addressed Student’s speech and language performance including expressive, receptive, and pragmatic language use. The report included input from Mother and Student, observations, and standardized assessments. At the conclusion of the report, Black

Accessibility Modified recommended to the IEP team Student did not meet the eligibility criteria for special education and related services under speech and language. Black’s testimony was consistent with the evidence, uncontroverted, and given great weight. Kim produced a psychoeducational evaluation of Student as part of the triennial reassessment process. The psychoeducational assessment comprised of records review, teacher input, observation, Parent input, and new standardized assessments in cognition, processing, adaptive behavior, social-emotional, and behavior.

As part of the social-pragmatic assessment, Student was assessed for autism. Kim’s report recommended Student met the eligibility criteria for special education and related services in other health impairment. Kim’s report also considered specific learning disability and autism; however, the report recommended Student did not meet the eligibility criteria for either of those categories. Kim’s testimony was consistent with the evidence, uncontroverted, and given great weight.

On May 14, 2023, both Parents acknowledged they received (a) a copy of the Notice of Procedural Safeguards, a copy of the assessment report, and a copy of the IEP; (b) agreed with the determination of eligibility; and (c) acknowledged they understood and consented to the contents of the IEP. Mountain View Los Altos assessed Student in autism, social-pragmatics, social-emotional regulation, and speech and language in April 2023.

Accessibility Modified

Parent produced no evidence to support she requested an assessment of Student during the 2023-2024 school year from March 27, 2024. Nor did the evidence presented at hearing establish a need for a reassessment from March 27, 2024. Mountain View Los Altos convened an IEP team meeting on April 4, 2024. Student and both Parents were in attendance at this IEP team meeting.

The team discussed Student’s present levels, reviewed his goals, and heard Parental concerns. Parents were concerned with Student’s academic performance in college-preparatory classes. Parents further expressed concern about Student’s transition to college. No one testified Student required any additional assessments during the 2023-2024 school year. Neither Parents, school staff, or Student raised any concern about any required additional assessments.

Student failed to meet his burden to demonstrate Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE for failing to assess in all areas of suspected disability during the 2023-2024 school year from March 27, 2024.

ISSUE 2: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT DENY STUDENT A FAPE

DURING THE 2024-2025 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO TIMELY COMPLETE

STUDENT’S TRIENNIAL RE-EVALUATION.

Student contends Mountain View Los Altos agreed to conduct an early triennial evaluation in 2025. Parent asserts an assessment plan was facilitated and consented to on April 19, 2025, which Parent contends Mountain View Los Altos failed to timely complete.

Accessibility Modified

Mountain View Los Altos asserted Parent revoked consent for the agreed upon early triennial in the middle of the assessment process and it was therefore under no obligation to complete the assessment under the 60-day timeline. If a Parent requests an assessment, a school district is not required to assess, but must follow formal procedures to either initiate the assessment or provide a legal justification for a refusal. (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503 (2006); Ed. Code § 56500.4 subd. (a).) A reassessment of a student requires parental consent. ( 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300 (c)(1)(2008); Ed. Code § 56381, subd. (f)(1).) Specifically, the parent must be given a proposed assessment plan, in writing, within 15 days of the assessment referral, along with a notice of IDEA and Education Code procedural rights. (Ed. Code § 56321, subd. (a).) The school district must give parents 15 days to review, sign, and return the proposed assessment plan, and may begin the assessment upon receipt of parental consent. (Ed. Code § 56321., subd. (a).) Once parental consent is obtained, the assessment must be completed, and an IEP team meeting convened to discuss the results within 60 days of the school district’s receipt of a parent’s written consent to the assessment plan, not counting days between the pupil’s regular school session, terms, or days of school vacations in excess of five school days. (20 U.S.C. § 1414 (a)(1)(C); Ed. Code §§ 56344, subd. (a), 56043, subd. (f)(1).) The evidence established that on March 28, 2025, Mountain View Los Altos convened Student’s annual IEP team meeting. Both Parents and Student attended the meeting. Following that meeting, Mountain View Los Altos presented Parent with an April 4, 2025, assessment plan proposing to assess in the following areas:

academic achievement, health,

Accessibility Modified intellectual development, language and speech communication development, perceptual motor development, social and emotional development, adaptive and behavior development, post-secondary transition, and a records review.

The assessment plan was generated because Mother suspected Student might have autism. Mother consented to the assessment plan on April 19, 2025. On April 22, 2025, Mother emailed Kim, the school psychologist and Mark Hollingshead, Student’s educational specialist. Mother requested the assessment be delayed as Student was upset about being re-assessed.

Hollingshead, who testified at the hearing, complied with Mother’s request, paused the assessment process, and scheduled an IEP team meeting with Parent before the end of the school year. There was no formal documentation prepared extending the statutory deadline to complete the assessment and hold an IEP team meeting within 60 days of Mother’s consent. Hollingshead’s testimony was clear and consistent with the evidence. He displayed an excellent understanding of Student and demonstrated he was empathetic and patient with Mother. His testimony was given great weight.

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

Accessibility Modified

Although it is unclear when Parent requested to resume the assessment of Student, it is clear that Hollingshead continuously communicated with Parent regarding Parent’s requested assessment. Hollingshead complied with Mother’s April 22, 2025, request and paused the assessment process while also scheduling an IEP team meeting on June 4, 2025.

Mother attended the IEP team meeting where the on-going assessment was discussed. Student did not attend. Also discussed were the on-going difficulties in obtaining Student’s participation in the assessment process. The 2024-2025 school year ended on June 6, 2025. By that time 48 days had elapsed since Mother consented to the assessment. Student was not eligible for extended school year. School resumed on August 11, 2025. Thus, the assessment was required to be completed and an IEP team meeting held by Friday, August 22, 2025. Mountain View Los Altos did not meet that timeline which constituted a procedural violation of the

IDEA.

The United States Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the IDEA’s procedural requirements. (Rowley, at p. 200.) Despite that importance, a procedural violation is not automatically considered a FAPE denial. (Park v. Anaheim Union High

School Dist. (9th Cir. 2006). 464 F.3d 1025, 1033, n.3.; Ford v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F 3d. 1086, 1089.) Procedural inadequacies that result in a loss of educational opportunity or seriously infringe on a parent’s opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process clearly result in a denial of FAPE. (Shapiro v. Paradise Valley

Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 317 F.3d 1072, 1078; see also Amanda J. v. Clark

Accessibility Modified

County School Dist., (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F3d 877, 892.) “[T]he informed involvement of parents” is central to the IEP process. (Winkleman v. Parma City School Dist. (2007) 550 U.S. 516, 524 [127 S.Ct. 1994].)

The evidence established despite not timely completing the assessment and holding an IEP team meeting, Mountain View Los Altos was responsive to Mother and Student’s concerns, and addressed the outstanding assessments with Parent. Specifically, Hollingshead reached out to Parent to check in on Student’s progress and Parent’s continued desire to re-assess Student. Rather than agreeing to move forward with the assessment, Parent revoked consent on September 2, 2025. Student established a procedural violation of the IDEA because the assessment was not completed and an IEP team meeting held within 60 days of parental consent. However, the evidence did not establish that the delay resulted in a substantive FAPE denial. Mountain View Los Altos remained engaged with Student and Parent from the time the assessment was started and paused the assessment process and reengaged the IEP process to discuss Student’s concerns. When the next school year started, Mountain View Los Altos reached out to Parent regarding options for the assessment. At that time, Parent withdrew consent.

There was no evidence establishing either that the delay before Parent withdrew consent denied Parent meaningful parental participation in the IEP development process nor adversely caused Student to lose educational opportunity. Thus, although a procedural violation occurred, it did not result in a substantive FAPE denial.

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

Accessibility Modified

As to any claim that Mountain View Los Altos denied Student a FAPE by not completing the assessment at all, Parent’s revocation of consent negated that claim. Student did not meet his burden to demonstrate Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to timely complete Student’s triennial re-evaluation.

ISSUE 3a: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT DENY STUDENT A FAPE

DURING THE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR UNTIL MARCH 27, 2026, BY

FAILING TO ASSESS FOR TRANSITION PLANNING ONCE HE TURNED 18.

Student alleged Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE when it failed to assess him for post-secondary transition once he turned 18, and as a result, failed to offer him an appropriate transition plan.

Mountain View Los Altos contends it was not required to conduct a transition assessment when Student turned 18, its transition plan was appropriate for Student. Transition planning begins with the first IEP in effect when a student turns 16 years of age, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP team. The pupil’s district must include with each IEP:

Appropriate measurable post secondary goals based upon ageappropriate assessment related to training, education, employment, and where appropriate, independent living skills;

and

Accessibility Modified

The transition services, as defined in Education Code section 56345.1, including courses of student, needed to assist the pupil in reaching those goals. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa) and (bb); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(8)(A) & (B).)

The law requires only that the post-secondary goals be based upon ageappropriate transition assessments. It does not require that a formal transition assessment be performed, or that standardized measures be used. Relevant information may be obtained from a variety of sources, including record review, interviews, assessment materials, or testing instruments, each of which may individually constitute an assessment.

Transition services are a coordinated set of activities designed within a resultsoriented process, focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the individual to facilitate movement from school to post school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, and integrated employment, including supported employment, continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation.

Accessibility Modified

Transition services are to be based upon individual needs, taking into account individual strengths, preferences, and interests. Transition services include instruction, related services, community experiences, development of employment and other post school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and provision of a functional vocational evaluation. Transition services may be special education if provided as specially designed instruction, or may be related services. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(34); 34 C.F.R. § 300.43; Ed. Code, § 56345.1.)

The IDEA requires IEPs for older students to include a plan for a coordinated set of services designed to move special education students successfully from high school to post-high school settings. Transition plans help students gain skills they will need when they graduate from high school or age out of special education when they turn 22 years old. Transition services emphasize the acquisition of functional skills and handson knowledge, enabling students to enter the workforce or continue their education or training. Such services also prepare students to eventually live as autonomously as possible, given the extent of their disabilities.

Mountain View Los Altos began transition planning with Student at his April 6, 2023, IEP when Student was in 10th grade and 15 years old. As part of the transition process, Mountain View Los Altos had Student complete a career cluster assessment. Student was also interviewed and his interests inventoried. From this information, a three-page post-secondary transition plan addressing his post-secondary training, education, and employment goals was created. The evidence established that Student was on track to timely graduate and intended to matriculate to college. He did not require any goals for independent living. Student’s IEP had one transition goal to complete, where he explored his strengths and interests and how it related to future careers and education.

Accessibility Modified

Mountain View Los Altos convened an annual IEP team meeting on April 4, 2024. Student and both Parents attended this IEP team meeting. At this meeting Student was 16 years old. He met his previous IEP goal. As a result, he received an updated IEP goal that related to transition. Student’s special education teacher, Michael Prehn testified at hearing. Prehn’s testimony was consistent with the evidence and given great weight. Student’s goal required Student to identify his top four factors to consider when selecting a college and find three post-secondary institutions that fit his established factors. At the time, Student indicated an interest in studying engineering or law, wanted to attend a college with a good sports program, in a warm climate that was not too far for his Parents to come visit.

Mountain View Los Altos convened a transition to Middle College IEP team meeting on June 3, 2024. Middle College is a program that collaborates with Foothill community college and delivers college-level curriculum in the areas of English language arts, history, and community. Both Parents and Student attended this IEP team meeting. It was at this meeting where Hollingshead took over Student’s case management. Student’s IEP was reviewed including his transition goal. Mountain View Los Altos convened Student’s annual IEP team meeting on March 28, 2025. Both parents and Student attended this IEP team meeting. Student met his previous transition goal. A new goal requiring Student to research admissions requirements and program options at three post-secondary schools of his choice. Student was required to summarize his findings in a two-paragraph essay that would be scored. Hollingshead updated Student’s transition plan to reflect that Student’s current top choice for college was [college name redacted].

Accessibility Modified

School psychologist Kim presented Mother with an assessment plan on January 27, 2026, requesting to formally reassess Student. One of the areas requested was post-secondary transition. Parent denied consent to the assessment plan on February 16, 2026. Student turned 18 on March 5, 2026. On March 13, 2026, Student assigned his education rights to his Parents. Student’s assignment included the right to provide or withhold consent for assessments, services, and placement, and to sign all IEP documents on his behalf.

Parent alleged Mountain View Los Altos was required to assess Student upon his 18th birthday. Parent provided no authority requiring this assessment. The evidence demonstrated, Mountain View Los Altos based its transition goals on Student’s stated interests which included his top choice for college and desired courses of study. Hollingshead testified persuasively he based his recommendations from a variety of sources to include Student, Parents, and records reviews. Thus, no evidence was presented establishing a transition assessment following Student’s 18th birthday was needed. Moreover, to the extent that underlying this claim is an argument that Mountain View Los Altos was required to present Student with an assessment plan when he turned 18, this argument fails. While it is true Student obtained educational rights on March 5, 2026, he assigned those rights to his Parents the following week. The evidence in this case established there was no obligation for Mountain View Los Altos to provide an assessment plan to Student upon his 18th birthday. Also, Mother rejected this exact assessment the month prior.

Student did not meet his burden to demonstrate Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE for failing to assess in transition planning once he turned 18.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3b: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT DENY STUDENT A FAPE

DURING THE 2024-2025 SCHOOL YEAR FOR FAILING TO OFFER AN

APPROPRIATE TRANSITION PLAN

Student contends Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE by failing to offer an appropriate transition plan. Mountain View Los Altos contends the transition plan, goals, and services offered in Student’s IEP were appropriate and met Student’s unique needs and reflected his post-secondary interests in education and career. Hollingshead’s testimony demonstrated his knowledge and understanding of Student, his education and career goals. Hollingshead developed a transition plan that reflected Student’s first choice in colleges. Student participated in three of the four IEP team meetings where his transition plan was discussed.

Student failed to meet his burden to establish Mountain View Los Altos failed to offer an appropriate transition plan for Student.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3c: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT DENY STUDENT A

FAPE DURING THE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR BY DENYING PARENTS

MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION IN STUDENT’S EDUCATION BY NOT

PROVIDING PROPER NOTICE OF THE IEP TEAM MEETING ON MARCH 4,

2026.

Student argued Mountain View denied him a FAPE because Parents were denied meaningful participation in the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting. Specifically, Student argued that Parents were not provided proper notice of the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting. Mountain View Los Altos contends Parent was provided notice of the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting after getting Mother’s agreement on dates. The IDEA requires the IEP notice to the parents indicate:

The purpose, time, and location of the meeting and who will be in attendance;

Inform the parents about their right to invite individuals who have knowledge or special expertise about the student; (34 C.F.R. § 300.322 (b)(1)(i).

Hollingshead testified persuasively to sending several requests for meetings with Parents and receiving no answer. Hollingshead established getting either Parent to attend an IEP team meeting was difficult. Mother informed Hollingshead she was available to meet on March 4, 2026. Hollingshead quickly organized an IEP team meeting

Accessibility Modified and sent a notice of meeting on March 3, 2026. Hollingshead sent to Mother a meeting invite that listed the purpose, time, and location of the meeting. The invitation identified the areas to be discussed and anticipated IEP team members to be in attendance. The IDEA does not impose any specific timelines for sending the notice of meeting. (34 C.F.R. § 300.322 (a)(1). ) The intent is that parents receive the notification with enough time to ensure their attendance. (Ibid.) Here, the evidence established that rather than choose an arbitrary date and schedule a meeting, Hollingshead worked with Parent to identify a time and date that fit her schedule. As soon as confirmation was received, he scrambled and pulled together the schedules of other team members to fit Parent’s preferred meeting date and time. Thus, the fact that the meeting notice was sent one day before the meeting, in this case, establishes particular care rather than delay.

The evidence established Mother attended the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting. Hollingshead testified persuasively of the efforts and flexibility he employed to provide Mother with an IEP team meeting that comported with her schedule. Such communication and ultimate scheduling of the meeting based on those communications provided Parent ample notice that the meeting was going to occur on Parent’s confirmed date. Student did not meet his burden to establish Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE by failing to provide proper notice of the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3d: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT DENY STUDENT A FAPE

DURING THE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR UNTIL MARCH 27, 2026, BY

FAILING TO HAVE ALL LEGALLY REQUIRED MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE

MARCH 4, 2026, IEP TEAM MEETING

Student contends Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE by failing to have a general education teacher present at the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting. Mountain View Los Altos contends all required members of Student’s IEP team were present at the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting.

The IDEA requires an IEP team to be comprised of a parent of the child, one general education teacher, a special education teacher, a district representative, an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, any additional members who have specific knowledge of the child, and when appropriate the child. (34 C.F.R. 300.321 (a).)

Hollingshead quickly organized the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting to accommodate Mother. District representative Suzanne Woolfork, general education teacher Alicia Trianna, school psychologist Kim, and Hollingshead confirmed their ability to attend on behalf of Mountain View Los Altos. General education teacher Trianna Accessibility Modified notified Hollingshead she would be 30 minutes late to the meeting as she had another meeting previously scheduled. Hollingshead notified Mother at the start of the meeting of Trianna’s expected late arrival. Hollingshead testified Mother appeared distracted as she was logging into the meeting remotely from a public area.

The team started the IEP with a review of Student’s individual transition plan. Hollingshead, as Student’s case manager, was familiar with his post-secondary and vocation interests. However, prior to the meeting end, Mother abruptly logged out of the IEP team meeting before Trianna logged in. Trianna logged in at the time she said she was available; however, the meeting had concluded because Parent had unexpectedly left. Student provided no authority that a late arriving team member is a fatal flaw to an IEP team meeting. The evidence in this case did not establish that Trianna’s late arrival was a procedural violation. Even had it; however, for a procedural violation to constitute a FAPE denial, it must deny parent meaningful participation or cause Student to lose educational opportunity. Neither were established here. Parent abruptly left the meeting. The IEP team could have proceeded without any issue as Hollingshead and Kim were both present to provide their updates to Mother until Trianna arrived. Moreover, no evidence was presented that Trianna’s scheduled, but late arrival, had any impact on Student. Thus, although no procedural violation was established, even had it, no substantive FAPE violation was established either. Student did not meet his burden to demonstrate Mountain View Los Altos denied him a FAPE for failing to have all legally required members at the March 4, 2026, IEP team meeting.

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

Accessibility Modified

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.

ISSUE 1, SUBSECTION a: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT FAIL

ITS CHILD FIND OBLIGATION DURING THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR.

Mountain View Los Altos prevailed on Issue 1subsection a.

ISSUE 1, SUBSECTION b: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT FAIL

TO ASSESS STUDENT IN ALL AREAS OF SUSPECTED DISABILITY

DURING THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR.

Mountain View Los Altos prevailed on Issue 1 subsection b.

ISSUE 2: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT FAIL TO TIMELY

COMPLETE STUDENT’S TRIENNIAL RE-EVALUATION.

Mountain View Los Altos prevailed on Issue 2.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3, SUBSECTION a: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT FAIL

TO ASSESS STUDENT FOR TRANSITION PLANNING ONCE HE

TURNED 18.

Mountain View Los Altos prevailed on Issue 3, subsection a.

ISSUE 3, SUBSECTION b: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT FAIL

TO OFFER AND APPROPRIATE TRANSITION PLAN.

Mountain View Los Altos prevailed on Issue 3, subsection b.

ISSUE 3, SUBSECTION c: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT

DENY PARENTS MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION IN STUDENT’S

EDUCATION BY FAILING TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE OF THE

MARCH 4, 2026 IEP TEAM MEETING.

Mountain View Los Altos prevailed on Issue 3, subsection c.

ISSUE 3, SUBSECTION d: MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS DID NOT FAIL

TO HAVE ALL LEGALLY REQUIRED MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE

MARCH 4, 2026 IEP TEAM MEETING.

Mountain View Los Altos prevailed on Issue 3, subsection d.

ORDER

All Student’s requests for relief are denied.

Accessibility Modified

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.

Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

Accessibility Modified