Parent on Behalf of Student v. Ontario-Montclair School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION

July 28, 2026

On December 18, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Parents on behalf of Student, naming Ontario-Montclair School District. A due process hearing request is called a complaint.

OAH granted Student’s motion to amend his complaint, and the amended complaint was deemed filed March 26, 2026. OAH continued the due process hearing for good cause on May 4, 2026.

Administrative Law Judge Rommel P. Cruz heard this matter by videoconference on June 9, 10, and 11, 2026.

Parents represented Student. Attorney Cynthia Vargas represented Ontario-Montclair. Assistant Superintendent Alana Hughes-Hunter, Ed.D., and Director of Special Education Christina James, Ph.D., attended all hearing days on Ontario-Montclair’s behalf.

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to June 29, 2026, for written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on June 29, 2026.

ISSUES

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

At the start of the hearing, OAH granted in part, Student’s motion to clarify the issues described in the Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference dated June 1, 2026. The issues to be heard and decided were clarified as follows:

1. Did Ontario-Montclair deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting, by:

a. misleading Parent through December 4 and 10, 2024 emails stating that the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting would not occur due to incomplete assessments; and

b. conducting the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting without Parents’ knowledge or participation?

2. Did Ontario-Montclair deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, by:

a. finalizing the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting on February 12, 2025, but backdating the meeting date in Student’s educational records to December 16, 2024, thereby falsifying Student’s educational records; and

b. predetermining Student’s program by moving forward with a finalized IEP program, dated December 16, 2024, without any input from Parents?

3. Did Ontario-Montclair deny Student a FAPE by providing a January 29, 2025 prior written notice that contained false information and material omissions, significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the educational decision-making process, specifically by:

a. claiming it informed Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, of the need to convene an IEP team meeting;

b. omitting that it explicitly informed Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, that the December 16, 2024 meeting would likely be cancelled due to incomplete assessments; and

c. omitting that it proceeded to convene the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting without Parents?

4. Did Ontario-Montclair deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide prior written notice when it agreed in November 2024 to long-term independent study placement but failed to provide it for six months following the agreement?

5. Did Ontario-Montclair deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide Student an educational program for six months beginning November 2024?

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as the IDEA, 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 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, §§ 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 requested the hearing and had the burden of proving each of the issues. 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 11 years old and completed sixth grade at the time of hearing. Student resided within the Ontario-Montclair’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under the categories of autism and speech or language impairment. Student was enrolled in Ontario-Montclair through the end of the 2024-2025 school year, but last attended on October 30, 2024.

2024-2025 SCHOOL YEAR

Student was in fifth grade during the 2024-2025 school year, which began on August 7, 2024. Student’s IEP dated December 19, 2023, consented to by Parents, provided Student in-person instruction in an autism special day class, with related services, and a behavior intervention plan. A special day class is a dedicated special education classroom for students with special needs that cannot be addressed in a general education classroom.

The December 19, 2023 IEP’s behavior intervention plan addressed Student’s use of inappropriate language and cursing, hitting and throwing objects at others, tearing papers and knocking over materials, and eloping. Eloping means leaving a designated supervised area without permission. Student was supported by a one-to-one aide throughout his shortened school day. He left school early each day to have lunch at home to receive a special diet.

Ontario-Montclair provided Parents an assessment plan dated September 30, 2024. The purpose of the plan was to conduct Student’s three-year reevaluations. Mother provided written consent to the plan on October 3, 2024.

Student missed nine school days from the start of the school year, through September 2024. In response, Parents and Ontario-Montclair agreed to amend Student’s December 19, 2023 IEP on October 3, 2024, referred to as the October 3, 2024 IEP Amendment, to offer Student 15 days of short-term independent study to make up for his absences. The October 3, 2024 IEP Amendment and resulting independent study program for Student are further discussed in Issues 4 and 5.

On October 17, 2024, Student’s special education teacher and case manager, Amber Sandoval, reported to the school, and testified at hearing, that Student engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior by using explicit sexual language and pulling Sandoval’s dress up. Student also inappropriately touched his aide. Sandoval reported Student engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior on two other school days, which involved explicit sexual language and inappropriate touching of a female student and aides.

On November 6, 2024, Parents reported to assistant principal Valarie Serrato their concern that Student learned the inappropriate sexual language and behavior from school staff and other students. Parents also claimed Student reported to them that staff had placed a wood chip in Student’s eye and another aide hit Student on the head. During the week of November 11, 2024, Parents emailed and spoke to Serrato by phone and shared they did not want Student to return to Sandoval’s classroom.

Serrato investigated Parent’s concerns and Student’s allegations. Serrato’s findings did not substantiate Parent’s concern or Student’s allegations. Serrato provided Parents a written report of her investigation on November 19, 2024.

Parents did not believe Student engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, despite assistant principal Serrato’s investigation. Based on Parent’s belief that Student was falsely accused of sexual misconduct and unsafe at school, Parents withheld Student from school from October 31, 2024, through the 2024-2025 school year.

ISSUE 1A:

DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR MISLEAD PARENTS THROUGH THE DECEMBER 4 AND 10, 2024 EMAILS REGARDING THE DECEMBER 16, 2024 IEP TEAM MEETING?

Student contends Ontario-Montclair misled Parents to believe the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting was cancelled and proceeded to hold an IEP team meeting on that date without Parents’ knowledge. Student argues Ontario-Montclair therefore denied Parents an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting.

Ontario-Montclair contends its IEP team members gathered on December 16, 2024, waited for Parents to join the meeting, and agreed to reschedule the meeting when Parents did not join. Ontario-Montclair asserts its IEP team members did not discuss, and made no decisions about, Student’s IEP during the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting. Therefore, Ontario-Montclair argues Parents were not significantly impeded in participating in any decisions about Student’s educational program.

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.)

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 (Rowley); Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000].) In Rowley, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of adherence to the procedural requirements of the IDEA. (458 U.S. at pp 205-206.)

However, a procedural error does not automatically require a finding that a FAPE was denied. A procedural violation results in a denial of FAPE only if it impedes the child’s right to a FAPE, significantly impedes the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child, or causes a deprivation of educational benefits. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2); see W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School Dist. No. 23 (9th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 (Target Range).)

Among the most important procedural safeguards are those that protect the parent’s right to be involved in the development of their child’s educational plan. (Doug C. v. Hawaii Dept. of Educ. (9th Cir. 2013) 720 F.3d 1038, 1043 to 1044 (Doug C.).) The parent of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and the provision of a FAPE to the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b); Ed. Code, § 56304, subd. (a).)

A school district is required to conduct, not just an IEP team meeting, but also a meaningful IEP team meeting. (Target Range, supra, 960 F.2d 1479, 1485; Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Board of Educ. (3rd Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1036 (Fuhrmann).) The IEP team shall consider the concerns of the parent for enhancing the student’s education and information on the student’s needs provided to or by the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A) & (d)(4)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(1)(ii) & (b)(1)(ii)(C); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subds. (a)(2), (d)(3) & (f).) A parent has meaningfully participated in the development of an IEP when the parent is informed of the child’s problems, attends the IEP meeting, expresses disagreement regarding the IEP team’s conclusions, and requests revisions in the IEP. (N.L. v. Knox County Schools (6th Cir. 2003) 315 F.3d 688, 693; Fuhrmann, supra, at p. 1036 [a 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].)

The evidence established the December 4 and 10, 2024 emails between Parents and assistant principal Serrato did not mislead Parents to believe the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting was cancelled. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated Parents were not willing to meet with the IEP team on December 16, 2024. Nevertheless, no FAPE denial occurred because Ontario-Montclair’s IEP team members did not discuss or modify Student’s IEP program on December 16, 2024. Therefore, Ontario-Montclair did not make any educational decisions regarding Student’s educational program without Parents’ involvement.

Communications between Parents and Ontario-Montclair leading up to the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting demonstrated Ontario-Montclair did not mislead Parents to believe the meeting was cancelled. The communications also showed Parents were not willing to meet on December 16, 2024. On October 30, 2024, Mother sent special education teacher Sandoval a message on ParentSquare, a communication platform which allowed parents and teachers to exchange messages. Mother messaged Sandoval that the school was “not the right environment” for Student. Mother also explained that she would be contacting assistant principal Serrato about moving Student to another class or homeschooling him until “we find a school that fits his needs.”

On December 4, 2024, Serrato emailed Mother that the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting was to review Student’s three-year reevaluations. Serrato’s email stated “most likely, we will not be able to hold this meeting” because Student had not been at school for assessors to assess him.

Serrato’s December 4, 2024 email also proposed two IEP team meeting dates to discuss Parents’ request for a new placement for Student, and to consider amending Student’s December 19, 2023 IEP. Serrato proposed December 9 or 13, 2024, for the meeting. On December 9, 2024, Mother emailed Serrato that Parents believed it best to postpone the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting to review Student’s three-year reevaluations, until after Student transferred to a “different/new school” that was safe and could support Student’s needs.

On December 10, 2024, Serrato emailed Mother stating that “most likely” the IEP team would not be able to hold the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting to review Student’s reevaluations because Student had not been assessed. However, Serrato confirmed the need for an IEP team meeting to discuss Parents’ request for a new school for Student, and requested Parents provide dates and times Parents were available to meet.

On December 10, 2024, Mother emailed Serrato that Parents were not available to meet until after the winter holiday break. Parents desired to postpone the three-year IEP team meeting until after Student transferred to a new school.

On December 16, 2024, Ontario-Montclair’s IEP team members gathered by video for an IEP team meeting. Parents did not attend. Vice principal Serrato, school psychologist Carlos Lopez, and Director II of Special Education Enrique Saldana, Ed.D., were among those who attended the meeting. Lopez and Dr. Saldana testified the IEP team members waited for Parents to join the meeting, and when Parents did not join the meeting, the school district team members decided to reschedule the meeting to January 2025, when Parents reported they would be available to meet. Lopez and Dr. Saldana also testified the IEP team members who attended the meeting did not discuss or make any changes to Student’s program. Student offered no testimony or documentary evidence to contradict Lopez’s and Dr. Saldana’s testimony as to what transpired at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting.

The communication between Parents and Ontario-Montclair showed that Ontario-Montclair did not mislead Parents to believe the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting was cancelled. Serrato’s emails to Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, did not cancel the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting. Parents were not willing to meet on December 16, 2024, and sought to postpone the meeting until after Student was placed in a different school. Mother’s testimony that Parents were interested in meeting with the IEP team on December 16, 2024, was not persuasive in light of Mother’s contradicting emails demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, Parents were not denied an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting because Ontario-Montclair made no decisions at the meeting with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of Student or the provision of a FAPE to Student.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE because the December 4 and 10, 2024 emails misled Parents, thereby impeding Parents’ right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 1A.

ISSUE 1B:

DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR IMPEDE PARENT’S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IEP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AT THE DECEMBER 16, 2024 IEP TEAM MEETING BY CONVENING THE MEETING WITHOUT PARENTS’ KNOWLEDGE OR PARTICIPATION?

Student contends Ontario-Montclair denied Parents the right to participate at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting because the meeting was held without Parents’ knowledge or participation. Ontario-Montclair contends the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting was not held without Parent’s knowledge, nor did Ontario-Montclair’s IEP team members decide any aspect of Student’s IEP at the meeting. As result, Ontario-Montclair argues no denial of FAPE occurred.

The evidence established Ontario-Montclair did not impede Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting. As determined in Issue 1A, Ontario-Montclair did not inform Parents the December 16, 2024 IEP meeting was cancelled, and did not discuss or make any decisions about Student’s IEP at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting.

Furthermore, Student failed to offer any testimony or documentary evidence of how Ontario-Montclair convening an IEP team meeting on December 16, 2024, deprived Parents from participating in any decisions with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of Student or the provision of a FAPE to Student.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting by conducting the IEP team meeting without Parent’s knowledge or participation. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 1B.

ISSUE 2A:

DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDE PARENT’S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IEP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AT THE FEBRUARY 12, 2025 IEP TEAM MEETING BY FALSIFYING STUDENT’S EDUCATIONAL RECORDS WHEN THE DECEMBER 16, 2024 IEP WAS FINALIZED ON FEBRUARY 12, 2025, BUT BACKDATED TO DECEMBER 16, 2024?

Student contends Ontario-Montclair falsely dated the IEP finalized on February 12, 2025, to December 16, 2024. Ontario-Montclair contends the date on the December 16, 2024 IEP was not falsified, and no denial of FAPE occurred as result of the IEP date.

Student failed to prove he was denied a FAPE because the IEP developed on February 12, 2025, was dated December 16, 2024. Ontario-Montclair prepared a draft IEP to be discussed, revised, and finalized by Parents and the other IEP team members at an IEP team meeting. Ontario-Montclair scheduled and convened four IEP team meetings related to the IEP developed on February 12, 2025. The first meeting occurred on December 16, 2024, followed by meetings on January 30, 2025, and February 5 and 12, 2025. Parents were noticed of those IEP team meetings, but did not attend any of the meetings.

Ontario-Montclair held no substantive discussions about Student’s IEP at any of the meetings prior to February 12, 2025. Ontario-Montclair convened and continued each of the meetings held on December 16, 2024, and January 30 and February 5, 2025, because Parents did not attend.

On February 11, 2025, Ontario-Montclair emailed Parents a copy of the draft IEP and assessment reports. Pursuant to Parents’ request, Ontario-Montclair revised the draft IEP to remove explicit language about Student’s sexual language and touching, and replaced it with more generalized language. For example, the social-emotional and behavior discussion of the IEP’s present levels of functioning was revised to accommodate Parents’ request.

As discussed further in Issue 2B, Parents refused to attend the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting. Ontario-Montclair’s IEP team members proceeded with the meeting when Parents failed to attend. The IEP team reviewed an assessment by school psychologist Lopez which consisted primarily of a review of Student’s prior assessments, an interview of Sandoval on October 4, 2024, and behavior logs for the 2024-2025 school year, through October 30, 2024. Lopez’s assessment was limited because Student had not attended school since October 30, 2024.

The IEP team also reviewed an academic assessment by special education teacher Sandoval dated December 15, 2024, an occupational therapy assessment report dated December 16, 2024, and an incomplete speech and language assessment report dated January 30, 2025. The speech-language pathologist noted in the assessment report that the assessor could not complete a comprehensive speech and language assessment due to Student’s frequent absences from school.

At the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, Ontario-Montclair offered Student the same program offered in the draft IEP developed for the December 16, 2024, and January 30 and February 5, 2025 IEP team meetings. Dr. Saldana explained at hearing that the team “affirmed and attested the IEP,” meaning it was locked in the school’s special education software system and could not be altered. Because the IEP was originally dated December 16, 2024, the software system finalized it as the December 16, 2024 IEP, even though it was completed on February 12, 2025.

The December 16, 2024 IEP offered Student placement in a special day class at his current school, with specialized academic instruction and related services. The IEP also offered a behavior intervention plan that addressed his elopement, aggression, inappropriate language, and touching of others.

On February 24, 2025, Ontario-Montclair sent Parents by certified mail to Parents’ home address, a copy of the December 16, 2024 IEP, and assessment reports. Documentary evidence showed the United States Postal Office left a notice upon delivery at Parents’ home, but the certified mail was not claimed by Parents. Therefore, the mail was returned to Ontario-Montclair on March 24, 2025.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair falsified the IEP dated December 16, 2024, which was offered following the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting. The December date of the IEP coincided with the initial IEP team meeting that was convened in Ontario-Montclair’s effort to develop the IEP with Parents. Finalizing the IEP on February 12, 2025, and identifying the IEP with a date of December 16, 2024, was not a falsification of the IEP document.

Furthermore, Student offered no testimony or documentary evidence on how the alleged falsification of the IEP document date of December 16, 2024, significantly impeded Parents’ right to participate in the IEP decision-making process. Mother testified and offered no testimony on how the February 12, 2025 IEP being dated December 16, 2024, significantly impeded Parents’ participation.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting by falsifying the IEP document and backdating it to December 16, 2024. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 2A.

ISSUE 2B:

DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR PREDETERMINE STUDENT’S IEP AT THE FEBRUARY 12, 2025 IEP TEAM MEETING WITHOUT PARENTS’ INPUT?

Student contends Ontario-Montclair finalized the December 16, 2024 IEP without incorporating Parents’ input or considering comprehensive assessments. Ontario-Montclair contends it did not predetermine the December 16, 2024 IEP, by finalizing the IEP on February 12, 2025, without parental input.

Predetermination occurs when a local educational agency has decided on its FAPE offer prior to the IEP team meeting, including when it presents one placement option at the meeting and is unwilling to consider other alternatives. (Z.F. v. Ripon Unified School Dist. (E.D.Cal., Jan. 9, 2013, No. 2:11-CV-02741-KJM-GGH) 2013 WL 127662, at *6 (citing Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Educ. (6th Cir. 2004) 392 F.3d 840, 858).) The law requires the local educational agency to engage in an open discussion of a student’s educational program and show a willingness to discuss options proffered by parents. (Anchorage School Dist. v. M.P. (9th Cir. 2012) 689 F.3d 1047, 1054-1055.) A local educational agency may not arrive at an IEP team meeting with a take it or leave it offer. (JG v. Douglas County School Dist. (9th Cir. 2008), 552 F.3d 786, 801, fn. 10.)

A local educational agency may conduct an IEP team meeting without a parent in attendance if the local educational agency is unable to convince the parent that the parent should attend. (34 C.F.R. § 300.322(d). The local educational agency must keep a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as detailed records of telephone calls, correspondences, and visits to a parent’s home or workplace. (34 C.F.R. § 300.322(d)(1)-(3).)

In Doug C., the parent repeatedly objected to an IEP team meeting being held without him. (Doug C., supra, 720 F.3d at p. 1044.) The parent expressed a willingness to participate in an IEP team meeting, but sought to reschedule the IEP team meeting the following week. In response, the local educational agency offered to reschedule the meeting for either of the following two days. Parent could not commit to meeting one or two days later because he was ill. Yet, the local educational agency proceeded with an IEP team meeting without parent and decided to change that student’s placement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, found the local educational agency in violation of its affirmative obligation to include the parent at the IEP team meeting when the parent expressed a willingness to participate, albeit at a later date. (Id. at p. 1045.)

In contrast, in K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Department of Education, Hawaii, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no procedural violation by the Hawaii Department of Education when the Department held an IEP team meeting without the parent. ((9th Cir. 2011) 665 F.3d 1110 (K.D.).) There, the Department made numerous efforts to schedule IEP team meetings for a date and time agreeable to the parent, but the parent failed to respond to the requests and made no effort to collaborate with the school district to schedule a meeting. (Id. at pp. 1124-1125.) The Court found the Department satisfied its duty to involve the parent in the IEP process as required under the IDEA. (Id. at p. 1125.)

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR MADE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO INCLUDE PARENTS IN STUDENT’S IEP TEAM MEETINGS

A preponderance of the evidence established Ontario-Montclair did not fail to meet its affirmative obligation to include Parents at the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting. Parents were unwilling to attend any IEP team meeting until after Student transferred to a new school. As discussed in Issue 1A, Parents were also unwilling to participate in an IEP team meeting in December 2024.

In January 2025, Ontario-Montclair provided Parents notice of a scheduled IEP team meeting for January 30, 2025. On January 21, 2025, Parents notified Ontario-Montclair that Parents were postponing any IEP team meeting until after Student transferred to a new school, and that Parents did not want Student to have an IEP at that time.

On January 29, 2025, Ontario-Montclair provided Parents prior written notice by mail and email, advising Parents that if they sought a change of school for Student, an IEP team meeting would be required to document concerns and any potential changes to Student’s IEP FAPE offer. The prior written notice also advised Parents that the IEP team meeting could be held by video, phone, or in person.

The January 29, 2025 prior written notice also offered additional IEP meeting dates for February 5 and 12, 2025, and asked Parents to notify Ontario-Montclair if Parents were agreeable to meet on either of the dates. IEP meeting notifications for the proposed meeting dates in February were enclosed with the mailed prior written notice and attached to the emailed notice. The prior written notice advised Parents that if Ontario-Montclair did not receive a response from Parents by February 7, 2025, regarding Parents’ availability to meet on the proposed meeting dates, Ontario-Montclair would proceed with an IEP team meeting on February 12, 2025, at 9:00 AM, to review assessment results and Student’s IEP. The notice advised that Ontario-Montclair would send Parents copies of IEP documents for their review and consideration for consent after the February 12, 2025 meeting.

On February 3, 2025, Mother emailed Director II of Special Education Dr. Saldana that assistant principal Serrato had informed Parents in December 2024 that the IEP team meeting scheduled for December 16, 2024, could not be held because Student had not been in school to be assessed. Mother explained Student’s absence was due to sexual allegations made by special education teacher Sandoval that Ontario-Montclair refused to investigate. Parents did not inform Ontario-Montclair that they were not available to meet on February 5 or 12, 2025, nor did Parents request to reschedule the IEP team meeting or offer other dates and times to meet.

On February 4, 2025, Dr. Saldana replied to Mother and explained that changes to Student’s placement and services would occur through the IEP process. Dr. Saldana offered to convene an IEP team meeting to include a different teacher or administrator if Parents preferred. Dr. Saldana explained that independent studies for students with disabilities is permissible if their IEP provides for it. Dr. Saldana further explained that placing Student on independent study would require the IEP team to meet.

On February 5, 2025, Mother emailed Dr. Saldana explaining that Parents did not want to make changes to Student’s placement or services. Mother also stated that Student’s IEP already called for placement in an independent study program, therefore an IEP team meeting was not required for that reason. Parents did not inform Ontario-Montclair that they were not available to meet February 5 or 12, 2025, nor did Parents request to reschedule the IEP team meeting or offer other dates and times to meet.

On February 6, 2025, Dr. Saldana emailed Mother that the IEP team can consider other programs for Student, but it would need to be documented on his IEP. Dr. Saldana reminded Mother of the IEP team meeting scheduled for February 12, 2025, and asked if Parents would be attending that meeting.

On February 7, 2025, Parents emailed Dr. Saldana that Parents did not want to transfer Student to another school until they received written assurances that allegations of Student’s sexual misconduct would not be included in his educational records, including his IEP. Parents again did not inform Ontario-Montclair that they were not available to meet on February 5 or 12, 2025, nor did Parents offer other dates and times to meet.

On February 11, 2025, Ontario-Montclair emailed Parents a video meeting link through the Zoom application, with the meeting identification number and passcode to join, for the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, at 9:00 AM. On February 12, 2025, at 7:56 AM, Mother emailed Ontario-Montclair that Parents would not be able to join the IEP team meeting that morning because Student had a scheduled speech appointment.

Mother also requested in the email that Dr. Saldana provide Parents with written confirmation that any reference to Student’s alleged sexual conduct would not be included in Student’s IEP or school records. Mother advised that Saldana provide written confirmation to them before they were willing to meet in an IEP team meeting. Parents again did not request Ontario-Montclair reschedule the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, or offer any other dates and times to meet.

The evidence established Ontario-Montclair made reasonable attempts to include Parents for Student’s IEP team meeting. Ontario-Montclair properly noticed Parents of the IEP team meetings on December 16, 2024, January 30, 2025, and February 5 and 12, 2025. Ontario-Montclair maintained detailed records of its efforts to schedule a mutually agreeable date and time to meet with Parents, through emails, IEP team meeting notices, and prior written notices.

However, unlike the parent in Doug C. and similar to the parent in K.D., Parents had no interest in meeting with Ontario-Montclair’s IEP team. Parents elected not to attend the scheduled IEP team meetings and made no effort to collaborate with Ontario-Montclair to schedule a mutually agreeable date and time to meet. This was despite Ontario-Montclair repeatedly explaining to Parents the need to meet as a team to discuss Student’s program and placement.

Instead, Parents’ willingness to attend an IEP team meeting was conditioned on Ontario-Montclair meeting Parents’ demand for a written assurance that any reference to Student’s sexual misconduct was removed from his educational records. However, even after Ontario-Montclair revised the IEP document that removed specific, detailed references to Student’s sexual misconduct, and provided a copy of the revised IEP to Parents before the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, Parents did not attend that meeting and did not contact Ontario-Montclair to schedule another IEP team meeting.

Ontario-Montclair established Parents were notified of, but unwilling to attend any of the scheduled IEP team meetings despite Ontario-Montclair’s repeated efforts to convince Parents to meet with the school’s IEP team. Accordingly, Ontario-Montclair did not commit a violation by proceeding with an IEP team meeting on February 12, 2025 without Parents.

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR DID NOT PREDETERMINE THE DECEMBER 16, 2024 IEP

Furthermore, Ontario-Montclair’s IEP team considered Parent’s input in developing the IEP. Ontario-Montclair revised aspects of Student’s IEP and records to remove specific language and terms involving Student’s alleged sexual misconduct.

Furthermore, Parents did not return Student to school after October 30, 2024, and therefore, Ontario-Montclair could not comprehensively assess him. Consequently, Ontario-Montclair’s psychoeducational assessment was limited to reviewing prior assessments and considering input from Student’s teacher Sandoval, and service providers.

Parents also elected not to participate in the assessments when they failed to return a questionnaire and rating scales to Ontario-Montclair. Special education teacher Sandoval sent Parents a questionnaire and assessment rating scales. School psychologist Lopez and Sandoval both testified that they did not receive the forms back from Parents.

Mother’s testimony that she returned the assessment forms to Ontario-Montclair was not persuasive. Mother testified she notified Sandoval through ParentSquare that Student would return the forms to Sandoval. The evidence did not support her testimony. The documentary evidence containing the messages between Parents and Sandoval on ParentSquare did not include a communication from either parent corroborating Mother’s testimony. Mother’s uncorroborated testimony about her return of assessment forms and her contradicted testimony about Parents’ willingness to attend an IEP team meeting during the relevant period, diminished her credibility. Thus, her testimony was afforded little weight.

The evidence established Ontario-Montclair did not come to the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting with a predetermined, take it or leave it offer of FAPE. On the contrary, Ontario-Montclair offered four IEP team meetings, from December 2024, through February 2025, to meet with Parents to consider Parents’ concerns about the supports and placements available for Student. Student failed to offer any evidence of what concern or request Parents were willing to share at an IEP team meeting that Ontario-Montclair failed to consider at the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting.

Accordingly, Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, by predetermining Student’s program by moving forward with a finalized IEP program, dated December 16, 2024, without any input from Parents. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 2B.

ISSUES 3A, 3B, AND 3C:

DID THE JANUARY 29, 2025 PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE CONTAIN FALSE INFORMATION AND MATERIAL OMISSIONS WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDED PARENT’S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EDUCATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS?

Student contends the January 29, 2025 prior written notice contained false statements about the communications between Ontario-Montclair and Parents regarding the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting, which impeded Parents right to meaningfully participate in the educational decision-making process. Ontario-Montclair contends the January 29, 2025 prior written notice did not contain false information, nor did it omit material information that impeded Parents’ participation in the educational decision-making process.

A public agency must provide a prior written notice to parents of a child with exceptional needs upon initial referral for assessment, and a reasonable time before the public agency initiates or changes, or refuses to initiate or change, the identification, assessment, or educational placement of the child, or provision of FAPE to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503 (2006); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd. (a).) The notice is required to include a description of:

• The action proposed or refused by the agency;

• An explanation why the agency proposes or refused to take the action and a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report used by the agency as a basis for the proposed or refused action;

• A statement that the parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards, and, if this notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the procedural safeguards can be obtained;

• Sources for parent to contact to obtain assistance;

• A description of other options considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; and

• Other factors relevant to the proposal or refusal of the agency.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b)(4) & (5) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd. (b).) The purpose of the prior written notice requirement is to ensure that parents of a child with a disability are both notified of decisions affecting their child and given the opportunity to object to these decisions. (C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist. (3rd. Cir. 2010.) 606 F.3d 59, 70.)

ISSUE 3A:

DECEMBER 4 AND 10, 2024 EMAILS

On January 29, 2025, Ontario-Montclair sent Parents prior written notice regarding its efforts to convene an IEP team meeting. The prior written notice described the attempts made by Ontario-Montclair to invite Parents to IEP team meetings, referencing assistant principal Serrato’s December 4 and 10, 2024 emails to Parents. Student argues the December 4 and 10, 2024 emails did not inform Parents of the need to convene an IEP team meeting, which Student alleges the prior written notice inaccurately claimed.

The January 29, 2025 prior written notice accurately reflected that Ontario-Montclair informed Parents on December 4, and 10, 2024, of the need to convene an IEP team meeting. The notice stated that the staff at Student’s school contacted Parents to schedule an IEP team meeting to address Parent’s request for a new school for Student and to review assessments and his IEP. The notice referred to assistant principal Serrato’s December 4 and 10, 2024 emails to Parents regarding the need to convene an IEP team meeting. The notice also informed Parents that an IEP team meeting to consider a change in school for Student was required to document concerns and any potential changes in Student’s offer of FAPE.

Serrato’s emails to Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, informed Parents of the need to convene an IEP team meeting. Serrato’s December 4, 2024 email stated that “the IEP I would like to schedule with you both as soon as possible, is an amendment to the IEP to document your request for a new placement/school for [Student].” Serrato’s December 10, 2024 email stated, “we do need to hold an IEP to document your request for a new school.” Serrato’s email stated that the meeting could be done “via Zoom, over the phone or in person.”

Furthermore, Student failed to offer any persuasive testimony from Parents or any documentary evidence of how any discrepancy between the January 29, 2025 prior written notice’s characterization of the December 4 and 10, 2024 emails and what the emails actually stated, misled Parents such that they were significantly impeded in the educational decision-making process. Accordingly, Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE because the January 29, 2025 prior written stated that Ontario-Montclair informed Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, of the need to convene an IEP team meeting. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 3A.

ISSUE 3B:

OMITTING THE DECEMBER 4 AND 10, 2024 EMAILS’ STATEMENTS ABOUT THE UNLIKELY CONVENING OF THE DECEMBER 16, 2024 IEP TEAM MEETING

The January 29, 2025 prior written notice did not specifically mention assistant principal Serrato’s statements in the December 4 and 10, 2024 emails that the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting would not likely occur because Ontario-Montclair had not completed its comprehensive assessment of Student. Student argues the failure to mention those statements significantly impeded Parent’s participation in the educational decision-making process.

The January 29, 2025 prior written notice’s omission of any statements from the December 4 and 10, 2024 emails did not deny Student a FAPE. The purpose of the notice was to inform Parents of Ontario-Montclair’s decision to convene an IEP team meeting to consider Parents’ request to change Student’s school. The notice advised Parents that Ontario-Montclair believed it necessary for the IEP team to meet to document concerns and any potential changes in Student’s offer of FAPE based on Parents’ request to change Student’s placement. The statements in the December 4 and 10, 2024 emails about the unlikely convening of the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting, had no bearing as to why Ontario-Montclair was notifying Parents through the January 29, 2025 prior written notice of its decision to schedule an IEP team meeting to discuss Student’s program and placement.

Student had the burden of proving this issue, yet failed to offer any testimony or documentary evidence showing why the notice was required to include the emails’ statements that the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting would likely be cancelled, or how the omission of those statements significantly impeded Parents’ right to participate in the educational decision-making process. To the contrary, the purpose of Ontario-Montclair’s prior written notice was to include Parents in the IEP educational-decision making process.

In Student’s closing brief, Parents admitted they refused to attend an IEP team meeting despite repeated attempts by Ontario-Montclair to invite them. Parents admitted refusing subsequent invitations to IEP team meeting on January 30, February 5, and February 12, 2025, because Parents believed the school’s testing was invalid and because they desired a change of school placement. However, the IEP team meeting was the proper forum to discuss those concerns. Parents’ willful boycott of the IEP team meetings forced Ontario-Montclair to hold an IEP team meeting without their attendance. The prior written notice properly reflected Ontario-Montclair’s reasonable attempts to include Parents in the development of Student’s IEP, and to explain the importance of convening an IEP team meeting with Parents to address their concerns.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE because the January 29, 2025 prior written notice did not state Ontario-Montclair explicitly informed Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, that the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting would likely be cancelled due to incomplete assessments. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 3B.

ISSUE 3C:

OMITTING THE CONVENING OF THE DECEMBER 16, 2024 IEP TEAM MEETING

The January 29, 2025 prior written notice did not mention Ontario-Montclair convened an IEP team meeting on December 16, 2024. Student argues that omission significantly impeded Parent’s participation in the educational decision-making process.

Student was not denied a FAPE because the January 29, 2025 prior written notice did not state Ontario-Montclair convened an IEP team meeting on December 16, 2024. As found in Issue 1B, the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting was brief, and Ontario-Montclair’s IEP team members held no substantive discussions nor made any decisions about Student’s IEP. Moreover, upon learning that Parents would not be attending the IEP team meeting, Ontario-Montclair immediately ended the meeting and began attempts to reschedule the IEP team meeting to ensure Parents’ participation.

Student failed to establish how the notice’s omission of the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting, failed to notify Parents about Ontario-Montclair’s decision to schedule subsequent IEP team meetings to meet with Parents to discuss Student’s program and placement. Student also failed to demonstrate how the omission denied Parents an opportunity to object to Ontario-Montclair’s decision to schedule future IEP team meetings for the purpose of discussing Student’s program and placement.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE because the January 29, 2025 prior written notice did not state that Ontario-Montclair convened the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting without Parents. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 3C.

In sum, the January 29, 2025 prior written notice properly provided Parents notice of its decision, and the reason, for scheduling IEP team meetings to discuss Student’s program and placement. The notice did not contain false information, nor did it omit material information necessary to inform Parents of Ontario-Montclair’s decision to schedule IEP team meetings to discuss Student’s program and placement. In addition, the notice did not impede Parents’ opportunity to object to that decision. Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE because the January 29, 2025 prior written notice contained false information and material omissions, which significantly impeded Parent’s right to participate in the educational decision-making process.

ISSUE 4:

DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR FAIL TO PROVIDE A PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE WHEN IT DID NOT PROVIDE STUDENT LONG-TERM INDEPENDENT STUDY PLACEMENT FOR SIX MONTHS?

Student contends Ontario-Montclair’s failure to provide Parents prior written notice when Ontario-Montclair did not implement long-term independent study placement from November 2024, through the 2024-2025 school year, denied Student a FAPE. Ontario-Montclair contends Student was not placed on long-term independent study. Therefore, Ontario-Montclair argues a prior written notice of a decision by Ontario-Montclair not to implement long-term independent study was not required.

Ontario-Montclair did not fail to provide a prior written notice when it did not provide Student with placement in long-term independent study from November 2024, through the 2024-2025 school year. Ontario-Montclair never offered to place Student on a long-term independent study program, and Student’s IEP did not place Student on long-term independent study program for that period.

Ontario-Montclair’s 2024-2025 school year began on August 7, 2024. Student missed nine days of school from the start of the school year through September 2024.

Ontario-Montclair offered students a Short-Term Independent Study program that allowed students who were absent for reasons such as travel or illness, to make up absences by completing packets of assignments provided by their teacher for the student to complete at home. Short-Term Independent Study was limited to 15 school days in a school year.

In contrast, Ontario-Montclair’s Long-Term Independent Study program constituted a change in a student’s educational placement. Ontario-Montclair offered online instruction through its Online Academy to support students on Long-Term Independent Study. Participation in Long-Term Independent Study required the student, student’s parent, student’s teacher, and if applicable, the student’s special education case manager, to sign an Independent Study Master Agreement which set forth the responsibilities of each signatory for long-term independent study. For example, a student was responsible for attending scheduled daily, live instruction.

On October 3, 2024, Parents and Serrato met to amend Student’s IEP without an IEP team meeting, to offer Student Ontario-Montclair’s Independent Study Short-Term program. The October 3, 2024 IEP Amendment stated that the IEP was amended to offer Student an Independent Study-Short Term until his health improved, for 15 days during the 2024-2025 school year. At hearing, Serrato confirmed the IEP amendment was limited to 15 days of independent study which she explained to Parents at the time of the IEP amendment.

The October 3, 2024 IEP Amendment specifically stated that Short-Term Independent Study was only for the duration of Student’s absences, and not in lieu of Student’s appropriate educational program, and therefore, not a “stay-put” placement. Stay-put refers to a student’s right to remain in their current educational placement until a due process proceeding is completed. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).). The IEP Amendment stated that Student would return to a regular in-school program pursuant to the December 19, 2023 IEP, at the conclusion of his absences. Parent provided written consent to the IEP Amendment on October 4, 2024.

On October 4, 2024, Father signed an Independent Study Master Agreement. However, the form signed by Father was not part of Student’s IEP, was incomplete, and lacked required signatures from Student, Student’s special education teacher, and Student’s case manager Sandoval. Consequently, Student failed to show the Long-Term Independent Study program was part of Student’s educational program.

The October 3, 2024 IEP Amendment allowed Student to make up the absences he had incurred prior to the amendment through Short-Term Independent Study, not to receive independent study in lieu of in-person instruction required in the December 19, 2023 IEP. The IEP Amendment did not place Student on Long-Term Independent Study, nor did the incomplete Independent Study Master Agreement signed by Father.

In November 2024, Parents contacted assistant principal Serrato for an additional 15 days of independent study packets beyond initial 15 days offered through the October 3, 2024 IEP Amendment. Serrato emailed Parents on November 13, 2024, informing Parents that Student completed 13 of the initial 15 study packets, and two packets were still available for Student to complete. Serrato also advised Parents that after the initial 15 days of independent study, Serrato would investigate if Student could have another 15 days of online instruction, as 30 days was the maximum allowed for the Short-Term Independent Study program.

Student did not utilize the two remaining study packets for the Short-Term Independent Study program. Therefore, it was not necessary for the school to offer Student an additional 15 days of independent study. Further, the additional 15 days of independent study would have constituted a change in placement, requiring Student to receive live instruction online and to materially change his IEP. Ontario-Montclair advised Parents through emails and prior written notices that a change in placement would require the IEP team to meet before a placement decision could be made. Ontario-Montclair neither agreed nor refused to change Student’s placement to Long-Term Independent Study because Parents refused to attend an IEP team meeting to discuss a placement change.

The evidence established Student was not placed on Long-Term Independent Study during the 2024-2025 school year. Therefore, Ontario-Montclair was not obligated to provide Parents prior written notice for not implementing Long-Term Independent Study from November 2024, through the 2024-2025 school year.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE by failing to provide prior written notice regarding long-term independent study placement. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5:

DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR FAIL TO PROVIDE STUDENT AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR SIX MONTHS BEGINNING NOVEMBER 2024?

Student contends Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE because Ontario-Montclair failed to provide Student with instruction and related services from November 13, 2024, through the 2024-2025 school year. Ontario-Montclair contends Student’s lack of instruction was the result of Parents’ decision to remove Student from Ontario-Montclair and their refusal to attend an IEP team meeting to address Student’s program and placement, not because Ontario-Montclair failed to offer Student a program.

As discussed in Issue 4, Student was not placed in Long-Term Independent Study. Parents also refused to meet with Ontario-Montclair from December 2024, through the end of the 2024-2025 school year, to discuss Student’s program and placement, including Parents’ initial request for a new school for Student and long-term independent study.

During the 2024-2025 school year, Student’s last agreed upon and implemented IEP dated December 19, 2023, offered Student in-person instruction in an autism special day class, with related services and a behavior intervention plan. Ontario-Montclair indicated in the January 29, 2025 prior written notice, that it was ready to implement the December 19, 2023 IEP. Thus, the December 19, 2023 IEP offer remained available to Student through the 2024-2025 school year in the event he returned to school after October 30, 2024. Student did not return. Because of Parents’ decision to withhold Student from school, Student was deprived of instruction and related services from November 2024, through the 2024-2025 school year. Student failed to offer any persuasive testimony or documentary evidence that Ontario-Montclair failed to make an educational program available to Student if he returned to school.

Student failed to prove Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE by failing to provide him an educational program for six months from November 2024. Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 5.

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 1A:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting, by misleading Parent through December 4 and 10, 2024 emails stating that the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting would not occur due to incomplete assessments.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 1A.

ISSUE 1B:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting by conducting the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting without Parents’ knowledge or participation.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 1B.

ISSUE 2A:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting by finalizing the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting on February 12, 2025, but backdating the meeting date in Student’s educational records to December 16, 2024, thereby falsifying Student’s educational records.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 2A.

ISSUE 2B:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the IEP decision-making process at the February 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, by predetermining Student’s program by moving forward with a finalized IEP program, dated December 16, 2024, without any input from Parents.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 2B.

ISSUE 3A:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by providing a January 29, 2025 prior written notice that contained false information and material omissions, significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the educational decision-making process, specifically by claiming it informed Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, of the need to convene an IEP team meeting.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 3A.

ISSUE 3B:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by providing a January 29, 2025 prior written notice that contained false information and material omissions, significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the educational decision-making process, specifically by omitting that it explicitly informed Parents on December 4 and 10, 2024, that the December 16, 2024 meeting would likely be cancelled due to incomplete assessments.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 3B.

ISSUE 3C:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by providing a January 29, 2025 prior written notice that contained false information and material omissions, significantly impeding Parent’s right to participate in the educational decision-making process, specifically by omitting that it proceeded to convene the December 16, 2024 IEP team meeting without Parents.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 3C.

ISSUE 4:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide a prior written notice when it agreed in November 2024 to long-term independent study placement but failed to provide it for six months following the agreement.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide Student an educational program for six months beginning November 2024.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 5.

ORDER

Student’s requested relief is denied.

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.

Rommel P. Cruz

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings