Walnut Valley Unified School District v. Parent on Behalf of Student

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION

JULY 8, 2026

On February 9, 2026, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, in OAH case number 2026020438, naming Walnut Valley Unified School District. On March 26, 2026, Walnut Valley filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2026031218, naming Student.

OAH consolidated the two matters on March 30, 2026. Walnut Valley’s case was designated as the primary case. The matter was continued on April 16, 2026, with the due process hearing set to begin on May 4, 2026. Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ, Ashok Pathi heard this matter by videoconference on May 4, 5, 6, 20, 21, and 22, 2026.

Attorney Sundee Johnson represented Walnut Valley. Director of Special Education Emiko Chapman attended all hearing days on Walnut Valley’s behalf. Parent represented Student and attended all days on Student’s behalf. Student did not attend the hearing. OAH provided Mandarin interpretation on all days.

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to June 22, 2026, for written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted, on June 22, 2026.

ISSUES

OAH issued an order confirming the issues for hearing on May 4, 2026, the first day of the due process hearing. After hearing the evidence, the ALJ renumbered Student’s issues in chronological order and to facilitate the required analysis. No change in substance was made. (J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443; Ford v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086, 1090.)

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

WALNUT VALLEY’S ISSUE

ISSUE 1

Was the March 25, 2024, Multidisciplinary Assessment appropriate, such that Walnut Valley is not required to fund independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education?

STUDENT’S ISSUES

ISSUE 2

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer speech and language goals to address Student’s functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language needs, and revise those goals as necessary between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026?

ISSUE 3

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer speech and language services to address Student’s functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language needs, and revise those services as necessary between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026?

ISSUE 4

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to conduct an adequate occupational therapy assessment, dated March 2024?

ISSUE 5

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE, by significantly impeding Parent’s ability to participate in the IEP process, by failing to provide Parent with a copy of the March 2024 occupational therapy report, related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, and a draft copy of the IEP:

ISSUE 5(A)

prior to the March 2024 IEP team meeting?

ISSUE 5(B)

during the March 2024 IEP team meeting?

ISSUE 6

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer occupational therapy services in the March 2024 IEP?

ISSUE 7

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE, by significantly impeding Parent’s ability to participate in the IEP process, or by causing a deprivation of educational benefit, by failing to provide Parent with prior written notice of its decision to not offer occupational therapy services in the March 2024 IEP?

ISSUE 8

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parent the March 2024 occupational therapy report and related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs in Mandarin verbally or in writing during the IEP team meeting or after such that Parent’s consent to the March 2024 IEP was not informed consent as defined by special education law?

ISSUE 9

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE, from March 25, 2024, through February 9, 2026, by failing to offer adequate replacement supports when it no longer offered occupational therapy services which resulted in functional regression and safety-related incidents and/or elevated risk at school?

ISSUE 10

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, by failing to appropriately convene an IEP team meeting when Parent requested that Student be retained in fifth grade on November 20, 2025?

ISSUE 11

Did Walnut Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to retain Student in fifth grade for the 2026-2027 school year?

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or 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] (Schaffer); and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) In this consolidated matter, Walnut Valley had the burden of proof on its issue, and Student had the burden of proof on his 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).) This Decision does not cite to the administrative record because it was not created before this Decision was issued. OAH Decisions are written in an accessible font, format, and style as required by state and federal law regarding accessibility to individuals with disabilities.

Student was 10 years old and in fifth grade at the time of hearing. Student resided within Walnut Valley’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under the category of speech or language impairment.

ISSUE 1:

WAS THE MARCH 25, 2024, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT APPROPRIATE, SUCH THAT WALNUT VALLEY IS NOT REQUIRED TO FUND INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS IN PSYCHOEDUCATION, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE, OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, AND ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION?

Walnut Valley contends that the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment meets all legal requirements, such that it is not required to fund independent educational evaluations in the areas of psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education. Walnut Valley also contends that it timely filed to defend its assessments following Parent’s request for independent educational evaluations.

Student contends that the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment does not meet all legal requirements, such that Student is entitled to independent educational evaluations at public expense in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education. Student contends that the assessment plan was not provided in Parent’s native language of Mandarin, did not include a copy of procedural safeguards, and did not offer assessments in all areas of suspected disability.

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); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321, and 300.501; and see Ed. Code, §§ 56031,56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a) and 56363 subd. (a).)

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 Sch. Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 201-204; Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000].) The procedural safeguards of the IDEA provide that, under certain conditions, a parent is entitled to obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (a)(1) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56329, subd. (b), 56506, subd. (c).) To obtain an independent educational evaluation, the parent must disagree with an evaluation obtained by the public agency and request an independent educational evaluation at public expense. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1).)

“Independent educational evaluation” means an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(3)(i).) A parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the public education agency conducts an assessment with which the parent disagrees. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(5); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (b).) The IDEA uses the term evaluation, while the California Education Code uses the term assessment. The terms are interchangeable. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a); Ed. Code, § 56302.5.)

WALNUT VALLEY TIMELY FILED A DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT TO DEFEND THE MARCH 25, 2024, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT

Following a request for an independent educational evaluation, the public agency must, “without unnecessary delay,” either:

• file a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or

• ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria.

(34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2); see also Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (c) [providing that a public agency may initiate a due process hearing to show that its assessment was appropriate].) This obligation is commonly referred to as a school district’s duty to “fund or file.”

The regulations do not specify what constitutes an “unnecessary delay.” Rather, what constitutes an “unnecessary delay” is a “fact-specific inquiry” that focuses on the circumstances surrounding the delay. (L.C. by & through Cruz v. Alta Loma Sch. Dist., (9th Cir. 2021) 849 Fed.Appx 678, 679 (Mem) (L.C.) [citing C.W. v. Capistrano Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2015) 784 F.3d 1237, 1247 and J.P. v. Ripon Unif. Sch. Dist. (E.D. Cal. April 15, 2009) 2:07-CV-02084-MCE-DAD, 2009 WL 1034993 at *7 (J.P.)].)

In L.C., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “[w]hen parties continued to discuss provision of an independent educational evaluation, there was no unnecessary delay in the school district waiting to file for a due process hearing until the parties reached a final impasse.” (L.C., supra, 849 Fed.Appx. at p. 679.) However, when a school district's delay is “unexplained,” a court may weigh this factor in favor of finding unnecessary delay. (Id. at p. 680 [citing Pajaro Valley Unif. Sch. Dist. v. J.S. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006) No. C 06-0380 PVT, 2006 WL 3734289, at p. *3].) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also found that a school break that occurs during a request for an independent educational evaluation “must also be considered in determining the timeliness of the [school district’s] due process request.” (Id. [citing J.P., supra, 2009 WL 1034993 at p. *7].)

Here, Walnut Valley timely filed for due process to defend the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment. Parent disagreed with the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment and requested independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education through email correspondence to Walnut Valley on February 14, 2026, which fell on the Saturday over the Presidents Day holiday weekend. Walnut Valley filed its due process complaint on March 26, 2026.

The time between Parent’s request and Walnut Valley’s filing was 39 calendar days. This was a reasonable time for Walnut Valley to evaluate the request for independent educational evaluations, and attempt to negotiate with Parent, before filing its complaint to defend the assessments. For example, the parties convened a resolution session to potentially resolve the issues included in Student’s complaint, one of which involved challenges to the occupational therapy portion of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Walnut Valley filed its due process complaint without unnecessary delay.

WALNUT VALLEY FAILED TO PROVE THE MARCH 25, 2024, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT MET ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

For Walnut Valley to not be responsible for funding Student’s requested independent educational evaluations, it must demonstrate that its assessments were appropriate, such that they met all legal requirements. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2); see also Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (c).) Here, Walnut Valley failed to prove that the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment met all legal requirements.

The IDEA provides for reevaluations to be conducted no more frequently than once a year, but at least once every three years, unless the parents and the agency agree that it is unnecessary. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (k), 56381, subd. (a)(2).) A school district must also conduct a reassessment if it determines that the educational or related service needs of the child, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reassessment. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R § 300.303(a)(1) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1), (2).)

A reassessment generally requires parental consent. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c) (2008); Ed. Code, §§ 56021.1; 56381, subd. (f)(1).) California law defines consent consistent with federal regulations. (34 C.F.R. § 300.9; Ed. Code, § 56021.1.) To obtain consent, a school district must develop and propose to parents an assessment plan and include a statement of parents’ procedural rights under the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56321, subd. (a).) The assessment plan must:

• be in language easily understood by the general public;

• be provided in the native language of the parent or guardian or other mode of communication used by the parent or guardian, unless to do so is clearly not feasible;

• explain the types of assessments to be conducted; and

• state that no IEP will result from the assessment without the consent of the parent.

(Ed. Code, § 56321, subds. (b)(1)-(4).) The IDEA and its regulations also require school districts provide notice of assessment procedures in their native language, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(b)(1), 1415(b)(4); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304(a), 300.503(b) (2006).) The school district must give the parent at least 15 days to review, sign, and return the proposed assessment plan. (Ed. Code, § 56321, subd. (c)(4).)

Student’s triennial reevaluation was due in the spring of 2024. In preparation for the reevaluation, Danielle McGhee, Student’s special education teacher and IEP case manager, also called a case carrier, developed an assessment plan, dated January 25, 2024. The assessment plan called for assessments in:

• academic achievement;

• health;

• intellectual development;

• speech and language, and communication development;

• motor development; and

• social, emotional, and behavior needs.

The motor development assessments were to include separate assessments by an occupational therapist and an adapted physical education teacher.

McGhee provided Parent with the assessment plan in English. Parent’s native language was Mandarin. Walnut Valley was aware of this but failed to provide Parent the assessment plan in Mandarin. McGhee conceded that she did not provide Parent with the assessment plan in Mandarin and believed that doing so was not necessary because Parent did not request a Mandarin copy.

McGhee’s testimony demonstrated a misunderstanding of the legal requirements for an assessment plan. While California regulations provide that a parent shall receive a copy of the IEP in his or her primary language upon request, this regulation does not apply or override Walnut Valley’s statutory obligation to provide assessment plans in a parent’s native language. (Compare Ed. Code, § 56321, subd. (b)(2) and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040, subd. (a).) Accordingly, Parent was not obligated to request the January 25, 2024, assessment plan in Mandarin, because the law required Walnut Valley to provide Parent a copy in her native language.

Both federal and state law excuse a school district from providing an assessment plan in a parent’s native language, if doing so is “clearly not feasible.” (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(b)(1), 1415(b)(4); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304(a), 300.503(b); Ed. Code § 56321, subd. (b)(2).) Walnut Valley did not prove that it was “clearly not feasible” to provide Parent the assessment plan in Mandarin. Walnut Valley provided other documents to Parent in Mandarin, including previous IEPs, and subsequent assessment plans, but failed to do so here. Walnut Valley had an established process for translating documents into Mandarin for families who required it. Therefore, Walnut Valley did not prove it was excused from providing Parent with the January 25, 2024, assessment plan in Mandarin.

Walnut Valley failed to provide the January 25, 2024, assessment plan to Parent in her native language. This was a procedural error under the IDEA and Education Code.

In a case filed by a local educational agency conducted pursuant to Education Code section 56505, a hearing officer shall not base a decision solely on nonsubstantive procedural errors unless the ALJ finds the nonsubstantive procedural errors resulted in the loss of an educational opportunity to the student or interfered with the opportunity of the student’s parent to participate in the formulation process of the IEP. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (j).)

As discussed in more detail in Issue 4 below, Walnut Valley’s failure here interfered with Parent’s opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, because it prevented Parent from fully understanding the scope of the proposed assessments and potentially requesting additional or different assessments.

Because of this failure, the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment did not meet all legal requirements, and Walnut Valley cannot meet its burden of proving otherwise. Therefore, no additional analysis or findings are required. Walnut Valley failed to prove that the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment was appropriate. Walnut Valley failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue. Student prevailed on

Issue 1.

ISSUE 2:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO OFFER SPEECH AND LANGUAGE GOALS TO ADDRESS STUDENT’S FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION, SELF-ADVOCACY, AND SAFETY-RELATED EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE NEEDS, AND REVISE THOSE GOALS AS NECESSARY BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9, 2024, AND FEBRUARY 9, 2026?

Student contends that he demonstrated speech and language deficits related to functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language. Student further contends that he required IEP goals to address those needs, which Walnut Valley failed to offer and revise as necessary.

Walnut Valley contends that Student did not demonstrate speech and language deficits related to functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language. Walnut Valley further contends that Student’s IEPs during the relevant timeframe included speech and language goals that offered Student a FAPE.

As explained below, Student failed to prove that he demonstrated speech and language deficits related to functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language, such that he required speech and language goals in those areas. Moreover, Student failed to prove that at any time during the relevant period Walnut Valley was required to revise Student’s IEP goals, and it failed to do so.

The IEP must describe the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, and include annual goals designed to meet the child’s needs. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I) and (II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1)(2); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(1) and (2).) An IEP must contain a statement of measurable annual goals for the child, including academic and functional goals, designed to:

• meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and

• meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability.

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(2).)

The purpose of annual goals is to permit the IEP team to determine whether the child is making progress in an area of need. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a); see also, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,471 (1999).) For each area in which a child has an identified need, the IEP team must develop measurable annual goals that are based upon the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, and which the child has a reasonable chance of attaining within a year. (Ed. Code, § 56344; Letter to Butler (United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, March 25, 1988); U.S. Dept. of Educ., Notice of Interpretation, Appendix A to 34 C.F.R., part 300, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,406, 12,371 (1999 regulations).)

The student’s needs must be described through a statement of present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the student’s disability affects the involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320 (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a).) The IEP shall show a direct relationship between the present levels of performance, the goals and objectives, and the specific educational services to be provided. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040.) The IEP must include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured, and when periodic reports of the child’s progress will be issued to the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320 (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(3).)

An IEP need not contain every goal from which a student might benefit. (34 C.F.R. § 300.137; Capistrano Unif. Sch. Dist. v. S.W. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 1125, 1134, cert. den. 143 S.Ct. 98, 214 L.Ed.2d 20 (Capistrano).) Further, a school district is not required to develop goals for areas covered by the general curriculum for which the student needs only accommodations and modifications. (U.S. Dept. of Educ., Notice of Interpretation, Appendix A to 34 C.F.R., part 300, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,406, 12,472 (1999 regulations) [discussing language also contained in the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA at 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II)].) California "does not require additional information, beyond that explicitly required by" the IDEA. (Capistrano, supra, 21 F.4th at p. 1133 [citing Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (i)].)

An appropriate public education "does not mean the absolutely best or 'potential-maximizing' education for the individual child." (Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. v. A.O. by and through Owens (9th Cir. 2024) 92 F.4th 1159, 1172 (A.O.), [quoting Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1314].)

IEPs are assessed in light of information available when the IEP was developed, not in hindsight. (Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149 (Adams) [citing Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Bd. of Educ. (3rd Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1041].) This is commonly referred to as the “snapshot rule.” However, some consideration of subsequent events may be permissible if the additional data “provide[s] significant insight into the child’s condition, and the reasonableness of the school district’s action, at the earlier date.” (E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 652 F.3d 999, 1006 (E.M.) [quoting Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149].)

Student did not clearly define the terms functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills. However, some of these terms are generally understood in special education. Functional communication relates to one’s ability to communicate one’s basic wants and needs. Generally, students with more significant cognitive impairments struggle with functional communication. Self-advocacy similarly relates to a student’s ability to independently express their wants and needs. Safety-related expressive language skills is not a generally used term in special education. Here, Student used this term to describe Student’s ability, or difficulty, reporting when he was injured at school, such as during recess times. This Decision uses these definitions in the discussion below.

The relevant period for this issue is February 9, 2024, through February 9, 2026. During that period, Student had multiple operative IEPs and IEP team meetings which require separate analysis. Each timeframe is discussed below.

BEFORE THE MARCH 25, 2024 IEP

The first relevant timeframe began on February 9, 2024. At that time, Student’s operative IEP was the March 28, 2023, IEP. This IEP did not include goals in functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language skills. The March 28, 2023, IEP was developed prior to the dates at issue and is not challenged here.

While IEPs generally are assessed in light of information available when the IEP was developed, that is not to say that there are no circumstances where a child could substantively challenge their special education program after the IEP was drafted.

Generally, a local educational agency must prepare and revise IEPs for students eligible for special education within its jurisdiction. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(d)(2),(4)(A).) IEP teams are required to review a student’s IEP, “periodically, but not less frequently than annually…” and revise the IEP “as appropriate to address” among other things, “any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum, where appropriate.” (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(d)(4)(A)(i), (ii); see also Ed. Code, § 56343.)

Here, Student specifically alleges a failure to both offer and revise the speech and language goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills. Therefore, Student can challenge the adequacy of his special education program after the date the operative IEP was developed, if he can prove that he had a change of circumstances, such as a change in needs or lack of expected progress, which required Walnut Valley to convene an IEP team meeting to revise his IEP and offer goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills.

Student offered no persuasive evidence or argument to prove that he had functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills needs between February 9, 2024, and March 24, 2024. Student offered no persuasive evidence or argument to prove that he had a change of circumstances between February 9, 2024, and March 24, 2024, that required Walnut Valley to convene an IEP team meeting to revise his IEP. Student did not prove that he was denied a FAPE when Walnut Valley did not offer or revise goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills during that timeframe.

MARCH 25, 2024, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT

As explained in Issue 1 above, Walnut Valley conducted a multidisciplinary assessment report, dated March 25, 2024. This report was conducted for Student’s triennial reevaluation. That multidisciplinary assessment report included a speech and language portion, conducted by Sabrina Alvarez.

Alvarez was a licensed and credentialed speech and language pathologist, with her certificate of clinical competence from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. She held bachelor’s degrees in speech and language and audiology, and psychology. She held a master’s degree in communication science and disorders, with a bilingual extension. She also held a master’s degree in business administration with a focus in healthcare management. Alvarez was authorized to conduct speech and language assessments and provide speech and language services in California public schools.

Between 2018 and 2023, Alvarez had worked in a clinical setting, providing speech and language services for children and young adults. Alvarez worked as a speech and language pathologist for Walnut Valley since August 2023. Alvarez was Student’s assigned speech and language pathologist beginning in August 2023. Alvarez conducted two speech and language assessments of Student and attended approximately five IEP team meetings for him.

Alvarez’s testimony was clear, comprehensive, and thoughtful. She provided clear explanations of speech and language assessment tools and terminology. She also demonstrated a high level of sensitivity to Student’s language and cultural differences as a native Mandarin speaker, and how those differences impacted his speech and language needs. Alvarez’s testimony and opinions were given significant weight.

The speech and language portion of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment documented Parent’s concerns with Student’s articulation and speech intelligibility.

The assessment revealed that Student did not present with deficits in speech fluency or oral motor skills, but that he did present with a hoarse voice. Alvarez explained that this may be due to Student speaking with a louder volume than necessary. However, Student passed a hearing screening without concerns.

Formalized articulation testing revealed that Student presented with articulation deficits that were not related to Student’s background as a native Mandarin speaker, and which required speech and language services. The remainder of the formalized assessments revealed that Student had generally average expressive and receptive language skills. Student scored in the below average range for three subtests, but those scores were not sufficiently low to indicate a deficit that required Student to receive speech and language services in those areas to receive a FAPE.

Student’s pragmatic language, or social language skills, were assessed informally and determined to be adequate. According to the assessment report, Student demonstrated strong pragmatic skills, including eye contact, tone of voice, conversational turn-taking, and initiating, maintaining, and terminating conversations.

Alvarez concluded that the assessment revealed that Student demonstrated articulation, intelligibility, and vocal hygiene skill deficits. Vocal hygiene related to the hoarseness Student presented. The assessment did not reveal needs in functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills.

Student did not offer any persuasive evidence, such as a contrasting expert opinion, that Student demonstrated functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills deficits at the time of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment. Instead, Student relied primarily on Parent’s opinion of Student’s needs. Parent is not a speech and language pathologist, and did not establish any other knowledge, training, or experience to allow her to provide an expert opinion on Student’s speech and language needs. Accordingly, Parent’s belief, however sincere, did not prove that Student had needs in those areas.

MARCH 25, 2024, IEP

Student’s IEP team convened for an annual review on March 25, 2024. At that time, Student was eight years old, in third grade, and eligible under speech or language impairment. Student’s IEP team reviewed the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment at this meeting.

Walnut Valley offered three speech and language annual goals in the March 25, 2024, IEP. These goals addressed Student’s voice, intelligibility, and articulation deficits. Student did not prove that Student had needs in functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills, or that he required goals in these areas. Rather, the record established that the three offered goals addressed Student’s speech and language needs as of the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

MARCH 26, 2024, THROUGH MARCH 24, 2025

Student offered no persuasive evidence or argument to prove that he had functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills needs between March 26, 2024, and when Student’s IEP team convened for an annual review on March 24, 2025. Student did not offer any persuasive evidence or argument to prove there was a change of circumstances during that time, that required Walnut Valley to convene an IEP team meeting to revise his IEP. Student did not prove that he was denied a FAPE when Walnut Valley did not offer or revise goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills during that timeframe.

MARCH 24, 2025, IEP

Student’s IEP team convened for an annual review on March 24, 2025. At that time, Student was nine years old, in fourth grade, and eligible under speech or language impairment.

Student had met his previous voice and speech intelligibility goals and made significant progress on his articulation goal. Speech and language pathologist Alvarez opined that Student no longer demonstrated deficits with voice or speech intelligibility. Walnut Valley offered an articulation goal. Alvarez explained that this goal would allow Student to continue working on the skills he did not master under the previous articulation goal, as well as learn additional skills.

Student did not prove that Student had needs in functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills, or that he required goals in these areas. Rather, the record established that the offered goal addressed Student’s speech and language needs as of the time of the March 24, 2025, IEP team meeting.

MARCH 25, 2025, THROUGH FEBRUARY 2, 2026

Student did not prove there was a change of circumstances between March 25, 2025, and when Student’s IEP team convened for an amendment IEP on February 2, 2026. Student failed to offer any persuasive evidence or argument to prove any circumstance that required Walnut Valley to convene an IEP team meeting to offer or revise the speech and language goals in his IEP at an earlier time.

Student argued that he demonstrated difficulties communicating when he was hurt on the playground, such as while playing basketball, or during his adapted physical education, referred to by the parties as APE, services. Even assuming that these difficulties fell within functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills, Student did not establish that he had any needs in these areas such that he required annual goals to receive a FAPE.

The evidence proved Student could communicate with staff and other students. Greg Sasaki, Student’s APE teacher during the 2025-2026 school year, explained that Student communicated with him regarding a minor leg injury Student had sustained while at school. Student did not prove this incident demonstrated a need for additional speech and language goals.

Student also argued that he had been injured while playing basketball during recess and following an incident of rough play with a peer. Student did not immediately report these incidents to school staff. Student argued that his failure to immediately report these incidents reflected an inability to do so, such that he required additional goals for functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language skills.

Parent’s testimony that she believed Student required goals in these areas was not sufficient to meet Student’s burden of proof. Walnut Valley’s witnesses Sasaki and Alvarez were more persuasive in establishing Walnut Valley did not have reason to suspect Student had needs in functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language skills such that it should have convened an IEP team meeting.

Student did not prove that he was denied a FAPE when Walnut Valley did not offer or revise goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills between March 25, 2025, and February 2, 2026.

FEBRUARY 2, 2026, AMENDMENT IEP

Student’s IEP team convened for an amendment IEP team meeting on February 2, 2026. During that meeting, the IEP team discussed Parent’s request that Student be retained in fifth grade for the upcoming 2026-2027 school year. Speech and language pathologist Alvarez presented an update on Student’s progress on his articulation goal and reported that Student met his last short-term objectives.

Student did not offer any persuasive evidence that he required goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills at the time of the February 2, 2026, IEP team meeting. Student also did not prove that Walnut Valley was required to revise Student’s speech and language goals at this amendment IEP, when his annual review was not due until March 24, 2026.

FEBRUARY 3, 2026, THROUGH FEBRUARY 9, 2026

Student offered no persuasive evidence or argument to prove that he had functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills needs between February 3, 2026, and February 9, 2026. Student did not offer any persuasive evidence or argument to prove there was a change of circumstances during that time that required Walnut Valley to convene an IEP team meeting to revise his IEP. Student did not prove that he was denied a FAPE when Walnut Valley did not offer or revise goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills during that timeframe.

Student failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had needs for goals related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026. Student also failed to meet his burden of proving that Walnut Valley failed to revise Student’s speech and language goals, when necessary, between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO OFFER SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES TO ADDRESS STUDENT’S FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION, SELF-ADVOCACY, AND SAFETY-RELATED EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE NEEDS, AND REVISE THOSE SERVICES AS NECESSARY BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9, 2024, AND FEBRUARY 9, 2026?

Student contends that he demonstrated speech and language deficits related to functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language. Student further contends that he required speech and language services to address those needs, which Walnut Valley failed to offer and revise as necessary.

Walnut Valley contends that Student did not demonstrate speech and language deficits related to functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language. Walnut Valley further contends that Student’s IEPs during the relevant timeframe included speech and language services that offered Student a FAPE.

As explained below, Student failed to prove that he demonstrated speech and language deficits related to functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language, such that he required speech and language services in those areas. Moreover, Student failed to prove Walnut Valley was required to revise Student’s IEP services during the relevant period, and it failed to do so.

The IEP must comprehensively describe the child’s educational needs and the corresponding special education and related services that meet those needs. (School Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ. (1985) 471 U.S. 359, 368 [105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385] (Burlington).) The IEP must identify the student’s special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, including program modifications or supports. (Id. at p. 368; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).) Speech and language services are a related service. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a); Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (b).) In California, related services are called “designated instruction and services.” (Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a).)

In developing the IEP, the IEP team shall consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the child’s education, the results of the most recent evaluation of the child, and the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a) (2017); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subd. (a).)

As decided previously in Issue 2, Student failed to prove that he had needs in functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language skills, between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026. Student likewise failed to prove that he required annual goals in those areas for the same period.

The IEP must show a direct relationship between the present levels of performance, the goals, and the specific educational services to be provided. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040.) Therefore, a student must have a disability related need in an area before the school district is required to provide services in that area. Accordingly, because Student failed to establish that he had needs in functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language skills, between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026, he cannot prove that he required speech and language services to address those areas for that same period.

Walnut Valley offered Student speech and language services in the March 25, 2024, IEP at a frequency and duration of 30 minutes per week. Student did not prove that this service was inadequate such that it denied Student a FAPE.

Student did not offer any persuasive evidence that he required additional or different services. Student did not offer expert testimony or establish through examination of Walnut Valley’s witnesses that the 30 minutes weekly speech and language services was not reasonably calculated to provide Student an educational benefit. Alvarez persuasively opined Student met his two prior speech and language goals with this level of service in speech and that the same level of service was sufficient to allow Student to make progress on the speech and language goals offered in the March 25, 2024, IEP.

Student ultimately met two of his three goals and made significant progress on the third. This further supports a finding that the speech and language services offered in the March 25, 2024, IEP were adequate. (E.M., supra, 652 F.3d at p. 1006 [quoting Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149].) Student also failed to prove that the speech and language services offered in the March 24, 2025, IEP were inadequate. Walnut Valley offered speech and language services at a frequency and duration of 25 minutes per week. Alvarez opined that this frequency and duration of service would allow Student to make progress on his articulation goal. Student did not offer testimony or documentary evidence to the contrary and failed to prove that this service was inadequate such that it denied Student a FAPE.

Student did not offer any persuasive evidence that he required additional or different speech and language services. Rather, the record established that 25 minutes of weekly speech and language services was reasonably calculated to provide Student an educational benefit. Student failed to prove that he required additional or different speech and language services to address functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills to receive a FAPE.

Student failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that he required speech and language services related to functional communication, self-advocacy, or safety-related expressive language skills between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026. Student also failed to meet his burden of proving that Walnut Valley failed to revise Student’s speech and language services, when necessary, between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 3.

ISSUE 4:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT, DATED MARCH 2024?

Student contends that the occupational therapy portion of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment does not accurately reflect Student’s needs.

Walnut Valley contends that the occupational therapy portion of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment meets all legal requirements.

A school district’s failure to conduct appropriate assessments or to assess in all areas of suspected disability may constitute a procedural violation of the IDEA. (Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105; Park v. Anaheim Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2006) 464 F.3d 1025, 1031-1033 (Park).) As decided above in Issue 1, the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment, including the occupational therapy portion, did not meet all legal requirements. Specifically, Walnut Valley’s failure to provide Parent with the January 25, 2024, assessment plan in Mandarin. This was a procedural violation of the IDEA.

However, that finding is not conclusive on the issue of whether Student was denied a FAPE, as alleged by Student. The two issues are not identical. Walnut Valley’s issue alleged compliance with procedural requirements pertaining to the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessments, and Student’s issue alleged a procedural violation which denied him a FAPE. Accordingly, Student’s issue required additional analysis to determine whether a procedural violation denied Student a FAPE.

In matters where a student alleges a procedural violation, a due process hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural violation did any of the following:

• impeded the right of the child to a FAPE;

• significantly impeded the opportunity of the parents to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child of the parents; or

• caused a deprivation of educational benefits.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(3)(E); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f).)

Here, Walnut Valley’s failure to provide Parent with the January 25, 2024, assessment plan in Mandarin significantly impeded Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

Parental participation in the IEP process is a foundational component of the IDEA. (Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at p. 53 [“The core of the [IDEA] . . . is the cooperative process that it establishes between parents and schools. . .The central vehicle for this collaboration is the IEP process.”]; Honig v. Doe (1988) 484 U.S. 305 [311, 108 S.Ct. 592] [“Congress repeatedly emphasized throughout the [IDEA] the importance and indeed the necessity of parental participation in both the development of the IEP and any subsequent assessments of its effectiveness.” (emphasis added)].) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found, “[p]arents not only represent the best interests of their child in the IEP development process, they also provide information about the child critical to developing a comprehensive IEP and which only they are in a position to know.” (Amanda J. v. Clark Cnty Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F.3d 877, 882 (Amanda J.).)

By failing to provide Parent with a copy of the January 25, 2024, assessment plan in Mandarin, Walnut Valley prevented Parent from fully understanding the assessments that would be included in Student’s triennial reevaluation. This failure prevented Parent from potentially asking for additional or different assessments. Therefore, Parent was prevented from meaningfully participating in the decision-making process.

The undersigned need not address Student’s other arguments regarding the inadequacy of the occupational therapy assessment, because Walnut Valley committed a procedural violation which denied Student a FAPE. (L.J. v. Pittsburg Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 850 F.3d 996, 1003 (L.J.), [citing Doug C. v. Hawaii Dept. of Educ. (9th Cir. 2013) 720 F.3d 1038, 1043 (Doug C.) [when a court identifies a procedural violation that denied a student a FAPE, no further analysis is required]].)

Student proved Walnut Valley denied Student a FAPE by failing to conduct an adequate occupational therapy assessment, as part of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment. Student prevailed on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5A:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE, BY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDING PARENT’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IEP PROCESS, BY FAILING TO PROVIDE PARENT WITH A COPY OF THE MARCH 2024 OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY REPORT, RELATED DATA ON STUDENT’S OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY NEEDS, AND A DRAFT COPY OF THE IEP PRIOR TO THE MARCH 2024 IEP TEAM MEETING?

Student contends that Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy report and related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, as well as a draft copy of the March 25, 2024, IEP prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Student contends that the failure to do so denied Student a FAPE.

The terms related data, or decision-basis materials, as used by Student, refer to assessment protocols and annual goal progress reports.

Walnut Valley contends that there is no legal requirement to provide an assessment report, the related data, or a draft IEP document to parents before the IEP team meeting in which the assessment report will be discussed. Rather, the IEP team reviews assessment and other data and develops the IEP during the meeting.

Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy report and related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, as well as a draft copy of the March 25, 2024, IEP prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT REPORT

Special education law requires that school districts provide parents with a copy of any assessment report. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(B); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (a)(3).) However, special education law does not require a school district to provide an assessment report prior to the IEP team meeting where that report will be reviewed by the IEP team. Student did not prove otherwise.

Requiring Walnut Valley to provide the requested assessment report prior to the IEP team meeting would impermissibly shorten the timeframe the law provides for the assessors to conduct their assessments and write the corresponding report.

Assessments must be conducted and reviewed by an IEP team within a total time not to exceed 60 days, not counting days between the student’s regular school sessions, terms, or days of school vacation in excess of five schooldays, from the date of receipt of the parent's written consent for assessment, unless the parent agrees, in writing, to an extension. (Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (c), 56302.1, subd. (a), and 56344, subd. (a).)

Here, Parent consented to the January 25, 2024, assessment plan on February 5, 2026, and returned the signed assessment plan to Walnut Valley staff on February 7, 2026. Therefore, the 60-day timeline for Walnut Valley to complete the assessments began on February 7, 2026. The March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting was well within this timeline, such that Walnut Valley was not required to finish the assessments any earlier.

Lastly, the record established that at least some portions of the multidisciplinary assessment, of which the occupational therapy assessment was part, were still being completed as late as March 24, 2024. Therefore, the earliest Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent with a copy of the March 2024 occupational therapy assessment report was at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Student did not prove Parent was entitled to a copy of the occupational therapy assessment prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS

Assessment protocols generally include score sheets on which students mark their answers and tables on which examiners calculate the students' scores. (Newport- Mesa Unif. Sch. Dist. v. California Dept. of Educ. (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2005) 371 F.Supp.2d 1170, fn. 5. (Newport-Mesa).) Assessment protocols also can include test questions and instructions for the assessors. (Id.) Unlike the obligation to provide parents with a copy of the assessment report, there is no automatic obligation to provide parents with copies of assessment protocols. Rather, parents may request them through a request for their child’s educational records. (Id. at p. 1175.)

Education Code, section 56504, provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he parent shall have the right and opportunity to examine all school records of his or her child and to receive copies . . . within five business days after the request is made by the parent, either orally or in writing.” School districts must also provide records without unnecessary delay before an IEP team meeting. (Ed. Code, § 56504.)

Educational records under Education Code, section 56504 include assessment protocols that are personally identifiable to the child. (Newport-Mesa, supra, 371 F.Supp.2d at p. 1179.)

As explained above, there was no automatic requirement for Walnut Valley to provide assessment protocols to Parent at any time. Student did not establish that Parent requested the assessment protocols prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Therefore, Student failed to prove Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent a copy of the occupational therapy assessment protocols prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

GOAL PROGRESS REPORTS

The IEP must include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured, and when periodic reports of the child’s progress will be issued to the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320 (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(3).)

Student argues that Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with copies of the progress reports related to Student’s occupational therapy goal from the March 28, 2023, IEP. Student further argues that Parent did not have the updated information on Student’s previous goals and that this lack of information prevented Parent from fully participating in the IEP decision-making process.

Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with the progress reports during the relevant time period of February 9, 2024, through March 25, 2024. Ultimately, the March 25, 2024, IEP included a complete copy of Student’s goals from the March 28, 2023, IEP and all of the progress report entries. Student failed to prove Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with IEP goal progress reports prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

DRAFT IEP

Education Code, section 56341.5 includes procedures for how IEP team meetings are to be conducted in California. Education Code, section 56341.5, subdivision (j) provides that the school district shall give a parent a copy of the IEP document at no cost. This requirement applies to the final IEP document resulting from an IEP team meeting. While Education Code, section 56341.5 has gone through several amendments between the version operative in March 2024, and the current version, the relevant portions have not changed.

Although school district personnel may bring proposed recommendations regarding a student’s IEP in the form of a draft of the IEP to the meeting, a child’s IEP is developed after full discussion of the child’s needs and the services to be provided to meet those needs. (U.S. Dept. of Educ., Notice of Interpretation, Appendix A to 34 C.F.R., part 300, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,406, 12478-12479 (March 12, 1999).) Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent a copy of any “draft IEP” staff may have developed to guide the IEP team’s discussion at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

Student failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy report and related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, as well as a draft copy of the March 25, 2024, IEP prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Student also failed to meet his burden of proving that any failure to provide Parent with a copy of these documents prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting denied him a FAPE. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 5A.

ISSUE 5B:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE, BY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDING PARENT’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IEP PROCESS, BY FAILING TO PROVIDE PARENT WITH A COPY OF THE MARCH 2024 OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY REPORT, RELATED DATA ON STUDENT’S OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY NEEDS, AND A DRAFT COPY OF THE IEP DURING THE MARCH 2024 IEP TEAM MEETING?

Student contends that Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy report and occupational therapy assessment protocols, as well as a draft copy of the March 25, 2024, IEP during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Student contends that the failure to do so denied Student a FAPE.

Walnut Valley contends that it provided Parent with the assessment report and draft IEP during the meeting, when they were displayed electronically for the IEP team members to view. Walnut Valley also contends there is no legal requirement to provide assessment protocols absent a request, and Parent made no such request.

Student proved that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy report during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, as well as a draft copy of the March 25, 2024, IEP during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT REPORT

As discussed previously in Issue 5A, special education law requires that school districts provide parents with a copy of any assessment report. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(B); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (a)(3).)

Here, Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Rather, special education teacher McGhee explained that, because the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting was held by videoconference, the assessment report was displayed electronically for the IEP team members to view.

However, displaying the report electronically during the meeting did not satisfy Walnut Valley’s obligation to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(B); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (a)(3).) Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with a copy of the report until special education teacher McGhee emailed Parent a copy on April 25, 2024, one month after the IEP team meeting. This copy was in English. Student’s arguments regarding Walnut Valley’s failure to provide Parent with a copy of the assessment report in Mandarin are discussed in Issue 8 below.

Walnut Valley’s failure to provide Parent with a copy of the assessment report prevented Parent from reviewing the report after the meeting, requiring Parent to rely on her memory of what was presented at the IEP team meeting. Even if the entire report was presented during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting, that would not satisfy Walnut Valley’s obligation to provide Parent with a copy of the report.

The month-long delay in providing Parent with a copy of the report was a procedural violation. This violation prevented Parent from meaningfully participating in the decision-making process. For example, Parent could have reviewed the English version of the report with the assistance of an interpreter or other individual, such as a bilingual family member, who could have helped Parent understand the English version. Walnut Valley’s failure to timely provide Parent with a copy of the assessment report denied her the opportunity to consider the assessment findings with the IEP team’s discussion fresh in her mind. This delay denied Student a FAPE.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS

As explained above, there is no automatic requirement for Walnut Valley to provide assessment protocols to Parent at any time. Student did not establish that Parent requested the assessment protocols prior to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Therefore, Student failed to prove Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent a copy of the occupational therapy assessment protocols during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

GOAL PROGRESS REPORTS

As explained above, the March 25, 2024, IEP included a complete copy of Student’s occupational therapy goal from the March 28, 2023, IEP and all of the progress report entries. The IEP team reviewed this information during the IEP team meeting. Therefore, Student failed to prove Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with IEP goal progress reports during to the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

DRAFT IEP

Student did not prove that Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent with a draft IEP document during the IEP team meeting. Education Code, section 56341.5, subdivision (j) provides that the school district shall give a parent a copy of the IEP document at no cost. However, Student did not prove this requirement applies to any draft IEP documents discussed at an IEP team meeting.

The record established that Student’s IEP team reviewed a draft IEP document electronically during the meeting with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. Student failed to prove this process denied Student a FAPE, because Student failed to prove Parent had a right to a copy of a draft IEP, in addition to the final version.

Student proved that Walnut Valley denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy report at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

Student failed to meet his burden of proving that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide the related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, as well as a draft copy of the March 25, 2024, IEP document during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Student also failed to meet his burden of proving that any failure to provide Parent with a copy of these documents during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting denied him a FAPE. Student partially prevailed on Issue 5B.

ISSUE 6:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO OFFER OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY SERVICES IN THE MARCH 2024, IEP?

Student contends that he required occupational therapy services at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP, to address his fine and gross motor needs. Specifically, Student contends that he had fine motor needs related to handwriting and gross motor needs related to running coordination. Student further contends that Walnut Valley’s failure to offer these services in the March 25, 2024, IEP denied him a FAPE.

Walnut Valley contends that Student did not have fine or gross motor needs at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP. Walnut Valley also contends that gross motor needs generally are addressed by adapted physical education or physical therapy services, rather than occupational therapy services. Walnut Valley also contends that Student did not require occupational therapy services to receive a FAPE at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP.

As explained below, Student failed to prove that he had fine motor needs requiring occupational therapy services at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP to receive a FAPE. Student also failed to prove that he had gross motor skills needs which could only be addressed by occupational therapy services.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE HE HAD FINE MOTOR NEEDS THAT REQUIRED OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY SERVICES

Occupational therapy services are a related service. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a); Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (b).) A student must have a disability related need that requires annual goals to require a service to address those goals. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040.)

Student failed to meet his burden of proving that he had fine motor needs which required occupational therapy services at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP. Student argued, but did not prove, that he demonstrated poor handwriting, also called penmanship, which was a marker of poor fine motor skills.

Student argued, and Parent testified, that Parent had raised concerns regarding Student’s fine motor skills related to handwriting, and that those concerns reflected Student’s continued need for occupational therapy services. As explained below, Student’s argument is not persuasive.

Parent spent significant time testifying about her belief that the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy report did not adequately address her concerns regarding Student’s fine motor skills. However, Parent’s testimony was not convincing and reflected misunderstandings about special education and the requirements for FAPE.

Generally, a parent’s concerns are not determinative of what services a child may need to receive a FAPE. Here, Parent’s concerns were considered in the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy assessment as well as in the March 25, 2024, IEP. The results of the formal and informal testing revealed that Student did not demonstrate difficulties consistent with Parent’s concerns. Student did not prove otherwise.

Parent testified that the protocols from the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy assessment, which included writing samples, clearly demonstrated Student’s delayed handwriting skills. However, such delays are not self-evident and require expert testimony to establish. Parent is not an occupational therapist, and is not otherwise qualified to administer or interpret the results of standardized occupational therapy assessments. Accordingly, her opinions regarding Student’s delayed handwriting skills and related fine motor needs were given no weight.

Walnut Valley’s occupational therapist, Jilianne Normandy Viloria successfully refuted Parent’s testimony and undermined Student’s argument. Normandy did not conduct the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy assessment report, but the report’s author, Carolina Rivera, was not available to testify due to a medical leave of absence.

Nevertheless, Normandy was qualified to interpret and explain the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy assessment report. Normandy held a bachelor’s of science degree in kinesiology, and a master’s degree in occupational therapy. She held a valid occupational therapy license in California, and was a nationally registered occupational therapist. Normandy held the required credentials to provide occupational therapy assessments and services within California public schools.

Standardized testing from the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy assessment revealed that Student had fine motor and manual dexterity skills in the average to above average range. Informal, observational based assessments revealed consistent results. Student demonstrated adequate handwriting skills including letter formation, size, directionality, placement, and spacing. Student’s general education report card indicated that he earned an “Outstanding” grade for penmanship, the highest possible grade, for the relevant second and third trimesters of the 2023-2024 school year. Normandy reviewed Student’s writing samples from the March 25, 2024, assessment and persuasively opined that the samples did not reveal any concerns requiring occupational therapy services. Student also met his previous occupational therapy goal, which addressed Student’s fine and visual motor skills related to handwriting.

Student unconvincingly argued that he required a pencil grip, also called a pencil sleeve, to assist with his handwriting, and only met his previous occupational therapy goal with the use of a pencil grip. However, Student did not prove that the use or need for a pencil grip equated to Student’s need for occupational therapy services.

Normandy persuasively testified that pencil grips are available to all students and can be managed by the classroom teacher, without the need for specialized occupational therapy services, or any special education services at all. Even if Student required a pencil grip as an accommodation, that is not conclusive that Student required occupational therapy goals and by extension occupational therapy services to address any specific need. (U.S. Dept. of Educ., Notice of Interpretation, Appendix A to 34 C.F.R., part 300, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,406, 12,472 (1999 regulations) [a school district is not required to develop goals for areas covered by the general curriculum for which the student needs only accommodations and modifications].)

Parent’s concerns and lay opinion are not dispositive of whether Student had fine motor skills needs related to handwriting at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Rather, the record established that Student did not demonstrate fine motor skills needs at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Normandy convincingly opined that Student did not require occupational therapy goals or services at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP.

Student repeatedly argued that Walnut Valley staff failed to prove that Student no longer required occupational therapy services as of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. However, Student’s argument misunderstood the burden of proof for special education due process proceedings. (Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 57-58, 62.)

Here, Student bore the burden of proof for the issues he raised, including his claim that he required occupational therapy services at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Therefore, Student’s argument that Walnut Valley failed to prove Student did not require occupational therapy services was not persuasive.

Student failed to prove that he had fine motor skills needs at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Accordingly, Student failed to prove that he required occupational therapy services to address any fine motor skills needs at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting, or that Walnut Valley denied him a FAPE for not offering them.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT HE HAD GROSS MOTOR NEEDS THAT REQUIRED OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY SERVICES

Student failed to meet his burden of proving that he required occupational therapy services to address gross motor needs.

The record established that Student’s March 25, 2024, IEP included a goal in the area of “motor skills” which address Student’s coordination while running. This goal was to be addressed by the adapted physical education teacher.

Parent testified that Student required occupational therapy services to address this need. She explained that one of the assessment tools used by the occupational therapist during the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy assessment included gross motor skills tests. Student argued that this assessment tool proved that occupational therapy was needed for gross motor skills.

Occupational therapist Normandy successfully refuted Parent’s testimony. Normandy explained that the assessment tool Parent referred to could be used for gross motor skills testing as well, but that other providers would generally use that portion of the tool, while occupational therapists would generally use the fine motor skills related portions. Student did not prove otherwise.

Moreover, Parent’s belief that an occupational therapist was required to address Student's gross motor needs was not conclusive of Student's need for occupational therapy services. Rather, "[t]he IDEA accords educators discretion to select from various methods of meeting the individualized needs of a student, provided those practices are reasonably calculated to provide him with an educational benefit." (Crofts v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411 (9th Cir. 2022) 22 F.4th 1048, 1056-57 [citing R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 631 F.3d 1117, 1122].) Even if an occupational therapist could support Student’s gross motor skills needs, Student did not prove that an adapted physical education teacher could not address these needs, or that only an occupational therapist could. In fact, Student met his gross motor skills goal with the supports and services offered in the March 25, 2024, IEP. While Student's successes were not dispositive that he received a FAPE, they constituted evidence of the reasonableness of Walnut Valley’s IEP offers. (E.M., supra, 652 F.3d at p. 1006.)

Finally, the record established that Student was a successful competitive swimmer. Around the time of the March 2024 assessment, Student reportedly broke several swim team records. While not determinative of Student’s needs in area of gross motor skills, Student’s athletic achievements further undermine his arguments that he required occupational therapy services to address gross motor needs.

Student failed to prove that he required occupational therapy services to address any gross motor skills needs at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting, or that Walnut Valley denied him a FAPE for failing to offer them. Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley denied him a FAPE by not offering occupational therapy services in the March 25, 2024, IEP. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 6.

ISSUE 7:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE, BY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDING PARENT’S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IEP PROCESS, OR BY CAUSING A DEPRIVATION OF EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT, BY FAILING TO PROVIDE PARENT WITH PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS DECISION TO NOT OFFER OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY SERVICES IN THE MARCH 2024 IEP?

Student contends that Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent with prior written notice of its decision to not offer occupational therapy services in the March 25, 2024, IEP. Student contends that this failure denied Student a FAPE because the lack of prior written notice significantly impeded Parent’s ability to participate in the decision-making process and caused Student to suffer a deprivation of educational benefit.

Walnut Valley contends that it was not required to provide Parent with prior written notice of its decision to not offer occupational therapy services in the March 25, 2024, IEP. Walnut Valley further contends that even if it was required to provide prior written notice, any failure to do so did not significantly impede Parent’s ability to participate in the decision-making process or cause Student to suffer a deprivation of educational benefit.

Special education law requires a local education agency, such as a school district, to provide parents with prior written notice whenever the agency:

• proposes to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child; or

• refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd (a).)

The prior written notice must include each of the following:

• a description of the action proposed or refused by the agency.

• an explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action and a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used 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 of this subchapter 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 parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this subchapter.

• a description of other options considered by the IEP team and the reason why those options were rejected.

• a description of the factors that are relevant to the agency's proposal or refusal.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd (b).)

Finally, the prior written notice must be in language understandable to the general public, and provided to parents in their native language or other mode of communication, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(c).)

An IEP document can serve as a prior written notice if the IEP contains the required content of a prior written notice. (Assistance to States for the Education of Children Disabilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46691 (Aug. 14, 2006).) The failure to provide adequate prior written notice may be a harmless error that does not deny a child a FAPE. (J.B. v. Kyrene Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 28 (9th Cir. 2024) 112 F.4th 1156, 1166 (J.B.).) Failure to provide prior written notice is "harmless" if it does "not result in a loss of educational opportunity or significantly restrict parental participation." (Marcus I. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ. (9th Cir. 2014) 583 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (Marcus I.); see also J.P. ex rel. Popowitz v. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) No. CV 09-01083 MMM MANX, 2011 WL 12697384 (J.P.) [finding plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the failure to provide a prior written notice because "the parents were active participants in the IEP meeting and contributed to and acquiesced in the conclusions reached and recommendations made"].)

Walnut Valley did not provide a separate prior written notice regarding the discussion at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting and the resulting FAPE offer reflected in the March 25, 2024, IEP. The March 25, 2024, IEP document also did not contain all the content required in a prior written notice, including the required written statements regarding procedural safeguards and assistance in understanding parental rights. This was a procedural violation. However, Student failed to meet his burden of proving that the failure to provide prior written notice denied him a FAPE.

Parent was an active participant in the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. The IEP team meeting notes, while not a verbatim transcript of the meeting, reflect Parent’s participation in the discussion regarding Student’s occupational therapy needs. The IEP team meeting notes reflect that occupational therapist Rivera shared the results of the March 2024 occupational therapy assessment, and her opinion that Student no longer required occupational therapy services. The IEP team meeting notes also reflect Parent’s disagreement with Rivera’s recommendation and belief that Student still required occupational therapy services. The record, including the IEP team meeting notes, established Parent received a notice of procedural safeguards.

Based on the discussion at the IEP team meeting, Parent was aware Walnut Valley intended to not offer continued occupational therapy services in the March 25, 2024, IEP, as well as its reasoning behind the decision. Parent was an active participant in the meeting and expressed her disagreement with the lack of continued occupational therapy services. Accordingly, the lack of a prior written notice did not significantly impede Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. (Marcus I., supra, 583 Fed.Appx. at p. 755; see also J.P., supra, 2011 WL 12697384 at p. *20.)

Moreover, as discussed above in Issue 6, Student failed to prove that he required occupational therapy services to receive a FAPE at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Therefore, Student did not suffer a loss of educational opportunity, rendering any error harmless. (J.B., supra, 112 F.4th at p. 1166.)

Student also argued that Walnut Valley was required to provide prior written notice to Parent explaining the effect of her consent to the IEP, such that consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP would end Student’s occupational therapy services as included in the March 28, 2023, IEP. Student did not prove that Walnut Valley had such an obligation, as the IEP team had already discussed the discontinuation of the service.

Additionally, Student has been eligible for special education since June 2018, and had been served under multiple IEPs since that time. Accordingly, Parent understood the effect of her consent to an IEP. Parent’s testimony that she did not understand that her consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP would terminate occupational therapy services was not credible, and was undermined by the discussion at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting, including Parent’s verbal disagreement with ending services.

Student failed to prove that he was denied a FAPE when Walnut Valley failed to provide Parent with prior written notice regarding its decision to not offer occupational therapy services in the March 25, 2024, IEP. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 7.

ISSUE 8:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO PROVIDE PARENT THE MARCH 2024 OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY REPORT AND RELATED DATA ON STUDENT’S OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY NEEDS IN MANDARIN VERBALLY OR IN WRITING DURING THE IEP TEAM MEETING OR AFTER SUCH THAT PARENT’S CONSENT TO THE MARCH 2024 IEP WAS NOT INFORMED CONSENT AS DEFINED BY SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW?

Student contends that Walnut Valley failed to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, occupational therapy assessment report and related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs in Parent’s native language of Mandarin, either verbally or in writing, during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting or anytime thereafter. Student also contends that this failure denied Parent the ability to provide informed consent, such that her consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP was not informed.

Walnut Valley contends that it provided Parent with a Mandarin interpreter during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting when the occupational therapy assessment was reviewed by Student’s IEP team. Walnut Valley also contends that it provided Parent with a copy of the occupational therapy assessment in Mandarin in May 2024, when it provided Parent a copy of the translated March 25, 2024, IEP. Walnut Valley contends that it provided Parent with all necessary information for Parent to provide informed consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP and Parent ultimately provided her informed consent.

WALNUT VALLEY PROVIDED PARENT WITH ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION REGARDING THE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

ASSESSMENT IN MANDARIN DURING THE MARCH 25, 2024, IEP TEAM MEETING

Special education law provides that school districts “shall take any action necessary to ensure that the parent or guardian understands the proceedings at a meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents or guardians . . . whose native language is other than English.” (Ed. Code, § 56341.5, subd. (i); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.322(e)(2006).)

Here, Walnut Valley provided a Mandarin interpreter for Parent at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. The interpreter was present for the entire meeting, including the IEP team’s discussion of the March 25, 2024, assessment report. Accordingly, Student did not prove that Walnut Valley failed to verbally provide Parent with the required occupational therapy assessment information at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

As determined in Issues 5A and 5B, Walnut Valley completed the occupational therapy assessment and presented the report at an IEP team meeting within the required timeline but did not provide Parent with a copy of the occupational therapy assessment report during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. However, Student did not prove that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent with a Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, assessment report at the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

Walnut Valley does not contest its obligation to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, assessment report in Mandarin. Even if it did, special education law requires it to do so.

There is no explicit statute or regulation requiring school districts to provide translated assessment reports akin to the requirement for California school districts to provide parents a copy of the IEP document in their native language upon request. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040.) Nevertheless, the constellation of rights afforded to parents results in such a right.

Under the IDEA, parents have the right to informed consent. (L.J., supra, 850 F.3d at p. 1007 [citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)].) Informed consent means that the parent has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought. (Id. [citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.9(a)].) Federal regulations require a parent be fully informed, “in his or her native language.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.9(a).) California has adopted this requirement in the Education Code. (Ed. Code, § 56021.1, subd. (a).)

Parents also have a right to receive a copy of an assessment report, once it is completed. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(B); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (a)(3).) When combining a parent’s right to informed consent in their native language, and their right to receive a copy of assessment reports, the result is the right of parents to receive the assessment report in their native language.

However, this right does not mean that parents have an immediate right to the assessment report in their native language. By analogy, California regulations do not place a timeframe on when school districts must provide a translated copy of the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040.)

Rather, the law requires that parents be informed when their consent is sought. (34 C.F.R. § 300.9(a); Ed. Code, § 56021.1, subd. (a).) Walnut Valley did not seek Parent’s consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP until it sent Parent a Mandarin translated copy of the IEP in May 2024. Therefore, Walnut Valley’s deadline for providing Parent with a translated copy of the assessment report was when it sent Parent the IEP for her written consent in May 2024, and not during the IEP team meeting when the assessment report was reviewed. Student did not provide authority to the contrary.

As determined in Issue 5A, there is no automatic requirement for a school district to provide parents with assessment protocols, and Student did not prove that Parent requested them ahead of the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting. Student did not prove that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent the assessment protocols in Mandarin verbally or in writing during the March 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.

As determined above in Issue 5B, the March 25, 2024, IEP included a complete copy of Student’s occupational therapy goal from the March 28, 2023, IEP and all the progress report entries. The IEP team reviewed this information during the meeting with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. Student failed to prove this was improper.

WALNUT VALLEY FAILED TO PROVIDE PARENT WITH A MANDARIN COPY OF THE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT IN

MANDARIN WHEN IT SOUGHT PARENT’S CONSENT TO THE MARCH 25, 2024, IEP

As explained above, Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent a copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report, which included the occupational therapy assessment report, in Mandarin when it sought her consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP. However, the record established that Walnut Valley failed to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report in Mandarin.

Special education teacher McGhee, who was Student’s case manager at that time, was the staff member responsible for requesting translation of IEP documents. McGhee emailed Parent on April 25, 2024, indicating that she had requested translation of Student’s IEP. In that same email, she attached English copies of the March 25, 2024, IEP and March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report.

McGhee testified that this email was meant to tell Parent that both documents were sent to be translated. However, Walnut Valley never provided Parent with a Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report. When questioned about the lack of a Mandarin copy, McGhee appeared uneasy and her related testimony was not convincing.

Parent has repeatedly, through various motions in this matter, sought a Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report. Nevertheless, Walnut Valley did not provide a copy, nor did Walnut Valley include a Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report in its documentary evidence. Parent repeatedly and consistently testified that she did not receive a Mandarin copy of the assessment report.

Speech and language pathologist Alvarez, who was Student’s case manager at the time of hearing, indicated that she did not have access to the Mandarin copy of the assessment report, because she was not the person who requested it. She did not testify as to being unable to access other documents translated into Mandarin, such as the March 25, 2024, IEP document.

Parent’s testimony that she never received a Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report was more persuasive than Walnut Valley staff’s testimony. Considering the conspicuous absence of a Mandarin copy of the assessment report from the record, as well as the unconvincing staff testimony regarding its existence, the record established that Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report in Mandarin. (Amanda J., supra, 267 F.3d at p. 893 [upheld hearing officer’s finding that parents did not receive assessment reports based on credibility determinations].)

Walnut Valley argued that portions or summaries of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report were included in the March 25, 2024, IEP, which Parent received in Mandarin. While the IEP included some information from the assessment report, the entire report was not copied into the IEP. Therefore, the translated IEP document does not cure Walnut Valley’s error.

Walnut Valley’s failure to provide Parent with a copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report in Mandarin was a procedural violation. (Amanda J., supra, 267 F.3d at p. 891.) This procedural violation significantly impeded Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Without a Mandarin copy of the assessment report, Parent was not able to fully understand the assessment results, upon which the March 25, 2024, IEP offer was, in large part, based. Accordingly, Walnut Valley denied Student a FAPE.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT WALNUT VALLEY FAILED TO PROVIDE PARENT WITH ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS AND GOAL

PROGRESS REPORTS WHEN IT SOUGHT PARENT’S CONSENT TO THE MARCH 25, 2024, IEP

As determined in Issue 5A, there is no automatic requirement for a school district to provide parents with assessment protocols, and Student did not prove that Parent requested them until the 2025-2026 school year. Accordingly, Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley was required to provide Parent with copies of the assessment protocols during the 2023-2024 school year. Even if Student did request the protocols, Student provided no authority or persuasive argument that Walnut Valley was obligated to provide Parent the assessment protocols in Mandarin.

Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley did not provide Parent with goal progress reports in Mandarin when it sought her consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP. Rather, the entire March 25, 2024, IEP was translated into Mandarin, including the previous goals from the March 28, 2023, IEP with the related progress data included. Therefore, Walnut Valley provided the goal progress reports to Parent in Mandarin.

STUDENT’S CHALLENGE TO PARENT’S CONSENT TO THE MARCH 25, 2024, IEP IS MOOT

Student argued that Parent’s consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP was not based on informed consent. Student argued that because Parent’s consent was not “informed,” it was invalid. Student further argued that Walnut Valley must resume occupational therapy services, which were included in the previous March 28, 2023, IEP, but were not included in the March 25, 2024, IEP.

Student failed to provide any persuasive argument or authority in support of this argument. Student did not establish OAH’s ability to invalidate Parent’s signed consent to an IEP. Had Parent been dissatisfied with ending occupational therapy services as offered in the March 25, 2024, IEP, she had options without needing to file a due process complaint.

Parent could have provided partial consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP, and refused to consent to ending the occupational therapy services. (Ed. Code, § 56346, subd. (e).) Had she done so, Walnut Valley would have been required to maintain the occupational therapy services. (D. R. v. Redondo Beach Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2022) 56 F.4th 636, 647 [citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) and Ed. Code, § 56346, subd. (f)].)

Even if Student had proven that OAH was authorized to invalidate Parent’s signed consent, the March 25, 2024, IEP was not Student’s operative IEP at the time of the hearing. Rather, Student’s operative IEP was the March 24, 2025, IEP, which also does not include occupational therapy services. Any change to Parent’s consent to an IEP other than Student’s operative IEP has no legal effect. Therefore, Student’s challenge to Parent’s consent to the March 25, 2024, IEP is moot.

Student proved that Walnut Valley denied Student a FAPE when it failed to provide Parent with a Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report, which included the occupational therapy assessment. Student’s challenge to Parent’s consent on the March 25, 2024, IEP is moot. Student partially prevailed on Issue 8.

ISSUE 9:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE, FROM MARCH 25, 2024, THROUGH FEBRUARY 9, 2026, BY FAILING TO OFFER ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT SUPPORTS WHEN IT NO LONGER OFFERED OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY SERVICES WHICH RESULTED IN FUNCTIONAL REGRESSION AND SAFETY-RELATED INCIDENTS AND/OR ELEVATED RISK AT SCHOOL?

Student contends that after Walnut Valley stopped offering occupational therapy services, Student’s fine and gross motor skills regressed. Student further contends that he received injuries at school during the 2025-2026 school year because of the lack of adequate replacement supports for the lack of occupational therapy services.

Walnut Valley contends that Student did not demonstrate any regression or needs in fine and gross motor skills between March 25, 2024, and February 9, 2026. Walnut Valley also contends that the injuries Student received during the 2025-2026 school year were minor and were typical for a fifth-grade student playing basketball and other activities at school.

Student failed to prove that he demonstrated any regression or needs in fine and gross motor skills between March 25, 2024, and February 9, 2026. Moreover, Student failed to establish he required any supports or services to replace the occupational therapy services no longer included in his IEP after the March 25, 2024, IEP.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT HE DEMONSTRATED FUNCTIONAL REGRESSION

As decided in Issue 6 above, Student failed to prove that he had fine or gross motor needs requiring occupational therapy services at the time of the March 25, 2024, IEP. Student likewise failed to establish any regression or unmet needs afterward.

Student unpersuasively argued that his penmanship regressed without the support of occupational therapy services. Contrary to Student’s assertion, the record established that Student had adequate penmanship skills. For example, Student’s report cards for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, during the relevant timeframe, revealed that Student received either “Outstanding” or “Satisfactory” grades in penmanship. These grades reflected adequate penmanship skills, and Student did not prove otherwise.

Student’s fifth-grade report card, during the relevant portions of the 2025-2026 school year, indicated that Student earned “Needs Improvement” scores for penmanship skills. However, Student’s fifth-grade general education teacher S. Vicki Kim credibly explained that Student’s penmanship scores reflected Student’s messy handwriting due to his tendency to rush through assignments. Kim explained that when she prompted Student to slow down, his penmanship improved greatly. Kim, who had 28 years of teaching experience, explained that Student’s messy penmanship was not unusual for fifth-grade students. She did not believe Student required special education supports for his penmanship.

Student did not successfully refute Kim’s testimony. Likewise, Student failed to meet his burden of proving that he suffered any regression of his fine motor skills during the relevant timeframe. Student failed to prove a need for any replacement supports when Walnut Valley no longer offered occupational therapy services.

Student likewise failed to prove that Student’s gross motor skills regressed during the relevant timeframe. As decided in Issue 6 above, Walnut Valley generally addressed gross motor needs through adapted physical education or physical therapy services, and not through occupational therapy services. In Student’s case, Walnut Valley addressed Student’s gross motor needs through adapted physical education services.

Even if Student had established that he had gross motor needs which arose after the March 25, 2024, IEP, Walnut Valley offered Student adapted physical education services in the March 25, 2024, IEP and subsequent IEPs during the relevant timeframe. Student failed to prove that the lack of occupational therapy services caused any regression in his gross motor skills. Student failed to prove a need for any replacement supports when Walnut Valley no longer offered occupational therapy services.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT HE HAD SAFETY-RELATED INCIDENTS AND/OR ELEVATED RISK AT SCHOOL

Student also argued that Walnut Valley’s failure to offer adequate replacement supports when it no longer offered occupational therapy services caused Student to have accidents and suffer injuries while at school. Student asserted that these incidents began occurring in November 2025. Accordingly, Student did not offer any persuasive evidence of injuries prior to November 2025.

Student argued that he received injuries while at school, such as a scratch on his face received while playing basketball during recess, and a swollen ear sustained after colliding with another student while playing basketball. Student argued that he received these injuries because of unaddressed gross motor needs.

Student failed to prove that these injuries were related to his disabilities. Rather, the record, including credible testimony from principal Dr. Rosa Northcott, established that these injuries were typical of those received by students who engaged in physical activities and sports at school. Northcott conducted multiple investigations into the injuries Parent reported to her during the 2025-2026 school year. None of these investigations revealed that Student had any unaddressed disability related needs that caused Student to be injured at school. Student did not prove otherwise.

Parent’s testimony demonstrated her concerns for Student’s safety and belief that he required additional special education supports to address what she believed were safety concerns. Parent’s belief, however sincere, is not proof that Student had safety-related incidents and/or elevated risk at school because of a disability related need. Because Student failed to establish that he had unaddressed disability related needs, Student also failed to prove that he required any replacement supports when Walnut Valley no longer offered occupational therapy services after the March 25, 2024, IEP.

Student also argued that he was injured while participating in assessment measures for an adapted physical education assessment. This incident happened after February 9, 2026, such that the incident was beyond the scope of the issues in this matter. Accordingly, Student’s arguments regarding that asserted injury were not considered as part of this Decision, and no findings were made.

Student failed to meet his burden of proving that Walnut Valley denied him a FAPE from March 25, 2024, through February 9, 2026, by failing to offer replacement supports when it no longer offered occupational therapy services which resulted in functional regression and safety-related incidents and/or elevated risk at school. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 9.

ISSUE 10:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE DURING THE 2025- 2026 SCHOOL YEAR, BY FAILING TO APPROPRIATELY CONVENE AN IEP TEAM MEETING WHEN PARENT REQUESTED THAT STUDENT BE RETAINED IN FIFTH GRADE ON NOVEMBER 20, 2025?

Student contends that Parent’s email to Student’s IEP team on November 20, 2025, requesting that Student be retained in fifth grade for the 2026-2027 school year was a request for an IEP team meeting. Student further contends that Walnut Valley did not appropriately convene an IEP team meeting to address Parent’s concerns, specifically that the IEP team meeting was not timely convened.

Walnut Valley contends that Parent’s request for retention was not an IEP team meeting request. Walnut Valley further contends that retention is a function of general education pursuant to the applicable school board policy, and has its own process separate from the IEP process.

WALNUT VALLEY FAILED TO TIMELY CONVENE AN IEP TEAM MEETING FOLLOWING PARENT’S NOVEMBER 20, 2025, EMAILS

School districts must convene IEP team meetings to periodically review a child’s IEP. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4).) In California, school districts must convene an IEP team meeting upon a parent’s request to develop, review, or revise the IEP. (Ed. Code, § 56343, subd. (c).)

School districts must convene an IEP team meeting within 30 calendar days of a parent’s written request, not counting days between regular school year sessions, terms, or school vacations in excess of five school days. (Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (l); 56343.5.)

Parent emailed principal Northcott on November 20, 2025. That email included a request that Student be retained in fifth grade for the 2026-2027 school year. Parent raised multiple reasons for retention, including Parent’s concerns about Student’s emotional immaturity, communication difficulties, confidence, and academic struggles.

A few minutes after Parent sent Northcott the email, Parent forwarded the email to Student’s IEP case manager, speech and language pathologist Alvarez. In addition to the forwarded content, Parent wrote separately to Alvarez. Parent ended her email with the following: “I would greatly appreciate any support, documentation, or professional opinion the IEP team can provide regarding [Student’s] readiness for 6th grade and whether retention may better support his long-term social and academic success.”

The parties dispute that these emails constituted a request for an IEP team meeting. Parent’s emails from November 20, 2025, did not explicitly request an IEP team meeting. Nevertheless, Parent’s emails make it clear that she had concerns about Student’s education for the upcoming 2026-2027 school year, due to Parent’s perception about the impact of Student’s disability on his ability to succeed in sixth grade. Because Student was eligible for special education, Student’s IEP team needed to discuss Student’s anticipated needs at an IEP team meeting. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A)(ii)(IV); Ed. Code, § 56343, subd. (c).) Thus, these emails were a request for an IEP team meeting to discuss Student’s program for the 2026-2027 school year.

Based on the date of the November 20, 2025 email, Walnut Valley should have convened an IEP team meeting no later than January 5, 2026. This accounts for Walnut Valley’s winter break, which took place between December 19, 2025, and January 2, 2026, with January 5, 2026 being the first day back to school. Walnut Valley’s Thanksgiving break week in November 2025 did not toll the 30-day timeline to convene an IEP team meeting, because it was not a school break in excess of five school days.

Student’s IEP team ultimately convened on February 2, 2026, a delay of 28 days. Therefore, Walnut Valley failed to timely convene an IEP team meeting pursuant to Parent’s November 20, 2025, request. Nevertheless, as discussed below, Student failed to prove that this delay denied him a FAPE.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE UNTIMELY IEP TEAM MEETING DENIED HIM A FAPE

Untimely IEP team meetings do not automatically deny a student a FAPE. (Doug C. , supra, 720 F.3d at p. 1046, [citing A.M. v. Monrovia Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 627 F.3d 773, 779 (A.M.).) [finding a delay in convening an IEP team meeting harmless when the child does not suffer a deprivation of educational benefits]].)

Here, Student failed to prove that he suffered a deprivation of educational benefits by the 28-day delay in convening an IEP team meeting. As discussed in detail in Issue 11 below, Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley denied him a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through February 9, 2026, by not retaining him in fifth grade. No changes were made to Student’s IEP at the February 2, 2026, IEP team meeting and Student did not prove any changes should have been made. Accordingly, Student’s program remained the same despite the delay, demonstrating no deprivation in educational opportunity. (A.M., supra, 627 F.3d at p. 779 [finding a student’s unchanged placement at the delayed IEP team meeting evidenced that the student was not deprived of educational opportunity].)

Student also did not prove any other way the delayed IEP team meeting denied him a FAPE. (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(3)(E); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f).) Therefore, Student failed to prove that the failure to timely convene an IEP team meeting following Parent’s November 20, 2025, email denied Student a FAPE.

WALNUT VALLEY DID NOT IMPERMISSIBLY EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 2026, IEP TEAM MEETING

Student’s complaint alleged that Walnut Valley impermissibly expanded the scope of the IEP team meeting to include discussion of additional matters, such as a comprehensive reassessment and a Student Study Team, referred to by the parties as an SST, meeting to discuss retention.

When convening an IEP team meeting, a school district must provide parents with notice of the meeting, which includes, among other things, the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, and who shall be in attendance. (Ed. Code, § 56341.5, subd. (c).)

Walnut Valley provided the required notice for the February 2, 2026, IEP team meeting, through a written notice, dated January 22, 2026. The notice indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct an IEP plan review on February 2, 2026. The notice also included information about the time and location for the meeting. Finally, the notice included a list of school district staff who were anticipated to attend the meeting, including a Mandarin interpreter.

Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley impermissibly expanded the scope of the IEP team meeting. Student failed to provide any legal authority to support his arguments, and it is not the ALJ’s responsibility to construct or develop a party’s argument. (See e.g. Independent Towers of Washington v. Washington (9th Cir. 2003) 350 F.3d 925, 929 [the court cannot construct arguments for a party, and will only examine issues specifically and distinctly argued in a party’s brief].) Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley was obligated to detail all possible discussion topics or possible outcomes in the notice prior to the IEP team meeting.

Student failed to prove that Walnut Valley denied him a FAPE by failing to appropriately convene an IEP team meeting following Parent’s November 20, 2025, request that he be retained in fifth grade. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 10.

ISSUE 11:

DID WALNUT VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO RETAIN STUDENT IN FIFTH GRADE FOR THE 2026-2027 SCHOOL YEAR?

Student contends that he should be retained in fifth grade for the 2026-2027 school year, because he lacks the skill necessary to succeed in sixth grade. Student contends that he lacks sufficient self-advocacy skills and is not functionally mature. Student finally contends that he should be retained to make up for his lack of occupational therapy services since March 2024. Student contends that Walnut Valley should have retained him pursuant to Parent’s November 20, 2025, request and subsequent discussion at the February 2, 2026, IEP team meeting. Student contends that the failure to do so denied him a FAPE.

Walnut Valley contends that Student failed to prove that he meets the requirements for retention. Walnut Valley also contends that Student is a model student who excels academically and socially.

APPLICABLE TIMEFRAME

A party may only raise issues at a due process hearing that it raised in its due process complaint, unless the other party agrees otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) Thus, due process claims are fixed as of the date the due process complaint was filed, because a filing party cannot put the other party on notice of events that have not yet occurred. The other issues here were clarified accordingly.

Student repeatedly introduced evidence of events that took place after February 9, 2026, the date Student filed his due process complaint. Walnut Valley objected and did not consent to the expansion of Student’s issues. Accordingly, this Decision only addresses decisions and actions taken by Walnut Valley related to Parent’s request for Student to be retained, through February 9, 2026, the date Student filed his due process complaint.

The IDEA specifically states that nothing in the IDEA shall be construed to preclude a parent from filing a separate due process complaint on an issue separate from a due process complaint already filed. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(o); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(c) (2006); Ed Code, § 56509.) Student may raise issues relating to decisions and actions made after February 9, 2026, in a subsequent complaint.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE RETENTION DECISIONS ARE WITHIN OAH’S LIMITED JURISDICTION

California law requires that school districts adopt policies regarding the promotion and retention of students. (Ed. Code, § 48070.) Students may only be promoted or retained as provided by those policies. (Ibid.)

California law also requires school districts to have specific policies for promoting and retaining students at specific grades. (Ed. Code, § 48070.5, subd. (a).) One of these grades is between the end of elementary and the beginning of middle school. (Id.) The record established that Walnut Valley begins middle school with sixth grade.

Retention and promotion policies must be based on a student’s scores on State testing, or their academic grades or other indicators of academic achievement as designated by the school district. (Ed. Code, § 48070.5, subd. (b).) The policies shall identify a student for possible retention based on their proficiency in reading, English language arts, and mathematics. (Ed. Code, § 48070.5, subd. (c).) However, a school district may retain an individual student for other reasons, if retention is determined to be appropriate for that student. (Ed. Code, § 48070.5, subd. (j).)

Critically, Education Code, section 48070.5, subdivision (f) provides that a school district’s retention policy must include a process for the teacher’s decision to promote or retain a student to be appealed. That same subdivision specifies that the burden of proof is on the appealing party to show why the teacher’s decision to promote or retain the student should be overruled.

Student failed to prove that appeals of promotion or retention decisions are within OAH’s limited jurisdiction. Through a due process complaint, a party has the right to present a complaint, “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a [FAPE] to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) OAH’s jurisdiction is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.)

Courts, including OAH, have an independent obligation to determine whether they have jurisdiction over claims raised before them. (Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. (2006) 546 U.S. 500, 514 [126 S.Ct. 1235; 163 L.Ed.2d 1097].)

Student did not prove that retention challenges involve a proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child or the provision of FAPE. Rather, courts have routinely treated grade level as not part of a child’s placement. (See e.g. E.E. v. Norris Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2021) 4 F.4th 866, 871 [citing K.D. v. Dep’t of Educ., Hawaii (9th Cir. 2011) 665 F.3d 1110, 1118 [finding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal “has interpreted ‘current educational placement’ to mean ‘the placement set forth in the child’s last implemented IEP.’”]]; see also Van Scoy v. San Luis Coastal Unif. Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. Jan 5, 2005) 353 F.Supp.2d 1083, 1086 (Van Scoy) [citing Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 1133-35 [superseded by statute on other grounds by 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)]].)

The court in Van Scoy found that the IDEA’s stay put provisions, which require a school district to maintain a child’s current educational placement during the pendency of proceedings, such as due process proceedings, did not prevent the student from advancing to the next grade. (Van Scoy, supra, 353 F.Supp.2d at p. 1086.) Inherent in this finding, was a distinction between educational placement and grade level. (Ibid [“Certainly the purpose of the stay-put provision is not that students will be kept in the same grade during the pendency of the dispute”].)

California’s regulations define educational placement where the IDEA does not. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042; see also N.D. v. Hawaii Dept. of Educ. (9th Cir. 2010) 600 F.3d 1104, 1114 [recognizing the IDEA does not define educational placement].) Even considering California’s expansive definition, educational placement does not include a student’s grade level.

Additionally, special education does not remedy denials of FAPE with retention. Rather, denials of FAPE that require a student to receive additional support to make up for services or supports they should have received are remedied by compensatory education. (R.P. v. Prescott Unif. Sch. Dist., supra, 631 F.3d at p. 1125 [citing Reid ex rel. Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, (D.C. Cir. 2005) 401 F.3d 516, 518 [finding compensatory education is an equitable remedy that seeks to make up for “educational services the child should have received in the first place,” and “aim[s] to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district's violations of IDEA”]].) Therefore, even if Student suffered some educational loss from his previous program, the solution would be to provide Student additional services prospectively as compensatory education, and not to retain him in fifth grade.

Other areas of general education law that may affect special education students are likewise beyond the jurisdiction of OAH. For example, the merits of school discipline findings regarding how a student violated the code of student conduct. (Danny K. v. Dept. of Educ., Hawaii (D. Hawaii Sept. 27, 2011) Civ. No. 11–00025 ACK–KSC, 2011 WL 4527387 [finding no requirement to “essentially deputize manifestation determination teams, and in turn, administrative hearings officers and federal courts, as appellate deans of students”].)

Other examples are challenges to grades pursuant to Education Code sections 49066 and 49070. (Fresno Unif. Sch. Dist. v. K.U. (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) 980 F.Supp.2d 1160, 1185 [finding Education Code section 49070 contains the procedures to challenge the accuracy of student records before a school district superintendent and school board]; see also Anenson v. Vacaville Unif. Sch. Dist. (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022) 20-cv- 00901-MCE-DB, 2022 WL 14751910 at fn. 6.) Therefore, a child’s status as a special education student alone does not confer OAH jurisdiction over any dispute related to their education.

This finding is not inconsistent with the finding in Issue 10 that Walnut Valley was required to convene an IEP team meeting to discuss Parent’s November 20, 2025, request for retention. Parent raised concerns regarding her belief of Student’s emotional immaturity, communication difficulties, confidence, and academic struggles. These are needs well within the scope of special education and, if they had materialized, could have led to changes to Student’s IEP, such as additional or different goals and services. Walnut Valley’s duty to convene an IEP team meeting upon a parent’s request is separate from any obligation Walnut Valley may have to retain a student, and OAH’s jurisdiction tracks accordingly.

The February 2, 2026, IEP team’s discussion about retention, including Walnut Valley staff’s recommendation against retention, does not change the character of the IEP team’s responsibilities regarding retention, or OAH’s jurisdiction. The February 2, 2026, IEP team meeting notes correctly indicated that retention is a function of general education and an IEP team does not make the ultimate decision on retention. (Ed. Code, § 48070.5, subd. (d) [specifies the student’s “regular classroom teacher” as the individual who determines promotion or retention and does not reference a student’s IEP team].)

Student may believe he should be retained and may wish to challenge Walnut Valley’s refusal to do so. However, Student failed to prove that challenge is properly before OAH. Student did not prove any relationship between retention and his receipt of a FAPE to allow him to invoke OAH’s limited jurisdiction.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT HE SHOULD BE RETAINED

Even assuming OAH has jurisdiction over Student’s retention claim, Student failed to prove he should be retained.

Neither party introduced a copy of Walnut Valley’s retention policy into evidence. Nevertheless, the record established that Student earned mostly “A” and “B” grades, and “Satisfactory” or “Outstanding” grades for effort-based skills, such as penmanship and study habits. Student also regularly scored at or above grade level in district-wide and annual California state achievement testing. These measures show Student is not in need of retention. (Ed. Code, § 48070.5, subds. (b) and (c).)

Student unpersuasively argued that his successes were due to significant after-school tutoring provided by Student’s family. Student argued that without this additional support, he would not have earned the grades that he did. Student’s argument was speculative and was not supported by convincing evidence.

Student also argued that an incident where he took a water bottle that belonged to a teacher demonstrated that he was not mature enough to promote to sixth grade. However, Student did not persuasively argue how a single, minor behavior incident rendered Student unable to promote to sixth grade.

Parent’s lay opinion that Student needed to be retained, and her related testimony were not persuasive. Walnut Valley staff universally and more persuasively testified that Student should not be retained. Student did not refute this testimony. Overall, the record established that Student was generally successful and ready to promote to the sixth grade.

Middle school can present different challenges when compared to elementary school. For example, a middle school schedule may require a student to transition between multiple classes per day on a differently sized campus. Even assuming Parent’s concerns about Student’s transition to middle school do eventually materialize, special education law requires Walnut Valley to address those new needs should they arise.

Student failed to prove challenges to retention decisions are properly before OAH. Even if challenges to retention decisions were properly before OAH, Student did not prove that Walnut Valley denied him a FAPE by failing to retain him in fifth grade for the 2026-2027 school year. Student failed to meet his burden of proof. Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 11.

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:

Walnut Valley failed to prove the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment was appropriate, such that Walnut Valley is required to fund independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education.

Student prevailed on Issue 1.

ISSUE 2:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer speech and language goals to address student’s functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language needs, and revise those goals as necessary between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer speech and language services to address student’s functional communication, self-advocacy, and safety-related expressive language needs, and revise those services as necessary between February 9, 2024, and February 9, 2026.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 3.

ISSUE 4:

Walnut Valley denied Student a FAPE by failing to conduct an adequate occupational therapy assessment, dated March 2024.

Student prevailed on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5A:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE, by significantly impeding Parent’s ability to participate in the IEP process, by failing to provide Parent with a copy of the March 2024 occupational therapy report, related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, and a draft copy of the IEP prior to the March 2024 IEP team meeting.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 5A.

ISSUE 5B:

Walnut Valley denied Student a FAPE, by significantly impeding Parent’s ability to participate in the IEP process, by failing to provide Parent with a copy of the March 2024 occupational therapy report during the March 2024 IEP team meeting.

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parent with the related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs, and a draft copy of the IEP during to the March 2024 IEP team meeting.

Student prevailed in part and Walnut Valley prevailed in part on Issue 5B.

ISSUE 6:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer occupational therapy services in the March 2024 IEP.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 6.

ISSUE 7:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE, by significantly impeding Parent’s ability to participate in the IEP process, or by causing a deprivation of educational benefit, by failing to provide Parent with prior written notice of its decision to not offer occupational therapy services in the March 2024 IEP.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 7.

ISSUE 8:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parent the March 2024 occupational therapy report and related data on Student’s occupational therapy needs in Mandarin verbally during or after the IEP team meeting, or in writing during the IEP team meeting.

Walnut Valley denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide Parent with a Mandarin copy of the March 2024 occupational therapy assessment report after the IEP team meeting. Students’ challenge to Parent’s consent to the March 2024 IEP is moot.

Student prevailed in part and Walnut Valley prevailed in part on Issue 8.

ISSUE 9:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE, from March 25, 2024, through February 9, 2026, by failing to offer adequate replacement supports when it no longer offered occupational therapy services which resulted in functional regression and safety-related incidents and/or elevated risk at school.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 9.

ISSUE 10:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, by failing to appropriately convene an IEP team meeting when Parent requested that Student be retained in fifth grade on November 20, 2025.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 10.

ISSUE 11:

Walnut Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to retain Student in fifth grade for the 2026-2027 school year.

Walnut Valley prevailed on Issue 11.

REMEDIES

Walnut Valley did not prevail on its issue, Issue 1. Accordingly, it is not entitled to a remedy and all of Walnut Valley’s requested relief is denied.

Student prevailed on Issues 1, 4, and in part on Issues 5B and 8. Accordingly, Student is entitled to a remedy.

Under federal and state law, courts have broad equitable powers to remedy the failure of a school district to provide FAPE to a disabled child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(C)(iii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); see Burlington, supra, 417 U.S. at p. 369.) This broad equitable authority extends to an Administrative Law Judge who hears and decides a special education administrative due process matter. (Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230, 244, fn. 11 [129 S.Ct. 2484, 174 L.Ed.2d 168].) Although Student failed to prove appropriate remedies, the undersigned ALJ is required to fashion appropriate relief once a denial of FAPE has been found. (Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3 (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 1489, 1497.) Walnut Valley failed to prove that the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment was appropriate. Therefore, Walnut Valley is required to fund independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education, by assessors of Parent’s choice.

Within 15 days of this Order, Walnut Valley shall provide Parent with a list of assessors qualified to conduct the independent educational evaluations. Parent may select an assessor from that list, or another assessor who meets Walnut Valley’s qualification requirements, as reflected in Walnut Valley’s current independent educational evaluation policy. (34 C.F.R. §§ 300.502(a)(2) and (e) (2006).) If Parent selects an assessor not included on Walnut Valley’s list, Walnut Valley shall contract with Parent’s selected assessor within 30 days of receiving notice of Parent’s selection.

Walnut Valley shall cooperate with the independent assessors such that the independent evaluations are conducted timely. This includes ensuring staff promptly return any questionnaires or rating scales the independent assessors may send to Student’s teachers or other Walnut Valley employees or contractors.

Parent may request interpretation assistance for any forms, questionnaires, or interviews that may be necessary to complete the independent educational evaluations. Should Parent request interpretation assistance, Walnut Valley shall provide up to four hours total of interpretation assistance to allow Parent to complete these forms, questionnaires, or interviews.

Following the completion of the independent educational evaluations, Walnut Valley shall convene an IEP team meeting to review the independent evaluations within 30 days of receiving a copy of the report from either Parent or the independent evaluators, unless Parent and Walnut Valley agree to a different timeline. However, Parent may choose to review each independent educational evaluation as they are finished or wait to review them all at once. Parent must advise Walnut Valley of such choice in writing, by sending an email after completion of each independent educational evaluation, to the then current director of special education and Student’s then current IEP case manager. The parties may otherwise agree to a different point of contact.

Walnut Valley shall fund the independent assessors’ participation in the IEP team meeting, including up to two hours of preparation time, and round-trip travel time, if the assessor chooses to participate in the IEP team meeting in person. If Student’s IEP team does not complete the review of the independent educational evaluations in a single IEP team meeting, Walnut Valley shall fund the relevant assessors’ participation, as described above, for a second IEP team meeting. No further funding for additional IEP team meetings shall be required.

Student also prevailed on Issue 4. However, Student is only entitled to one independent educational evaluation at public expense based on the March 25, 2024, assessments at issue. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(5); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (b).) Therefore, the undersigned ALJ cannot order Walnut Valley to provide an additional occupational therapy independent educational evaluation.

However, Student’s Issues 4, 5B, and 8 involve Walnut Valley’s failure to timely provide Parent with copies of assessment reports, and the failure to provide Parent with documents in her native language, as required by law.

Staff training can be an appropriate equitable remedy. (Park, supra, 464 F.3d at p. 1034.) Appropriate relief under the IDEA may include an award that school staff be trained in areas in which violations are found, to benefit the specific student involved, or to remedy procedural violations that may benefit other students. (Ibid.)

Walnut Valley staff demonstrated a misunderstanding of when parents must be provided certain documents in their native language, and did not timely provide Parent with copies of assessment reports. Therefore, staff training is appropriate.

This Decision orders staff training to ensure Walnut Valley staff do not repeat the errors and omissions in this matter. Both Student’s elementary school IEP team and his anticipated middle school IEP team shall receive this training. This training shall cover the development of appropriate assessment plans, timely providing parents with assessment reports, and providing all required documents to parents in their native language.

Finally, Walnut Valley shall provide Parent with a translated copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report in Mandarin. Throughout the time this matter has been pending, Parent has repeatedly requested a Mandarin copy of this report. However, Walnut Valley has not provided Parent a copy. Walnut Valley shall do so within 45 days of this Decision. Walnut Valley shall ensure that the Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report is properly stored in Student’s educational record.

Student did not prevail on any other issues. Student did not prove that he was entitled to any other remedies. Accordingly, all other requested relief is denied.

ORDER

1. All relief requested by Walnut Valley is denied.

2. Walnut Valley shall fund independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education.

3. Within 15 days of this Order, Walnut Valley shall provide Parent with a list of assessors qualified to conduct the independent educational evaluations as reflected in Walnut Valley’s current independent educational evaluation policy. Parent may select an assessor from that list, or another assessor who meets Walnut Valley’s qualification requirements. If Parent selects an assessor not included on Walnut Valley’s list, Walnut Valley shall contract with Parent’s selected assessor within 30 days of receiving notice of Parent’s selection.

4. Walnut Valley shall cooperate with the independent assessors such that the independent evaluations are conducted timely. This includes ensuring staff promptly return any questionnaires or rating scales the independent assessors may send to Student’s teachers or other Walnut Valley employees or contractors.

5. Parent may request interpretation assistance for any forms, questionnaires, or interviews that may be necessary to complete the independent educational evaluations. Should Parent request interpretation assistance, Walnut Valley shall provide up to four hours total of interpretation assistance to allow Parent to complete these forms, questionnaires, or interviews.

6. Following the completion of the independent educational evaluations, Walnut Valley shall convene an IEP team meeting to review the independent evaluations within 30 days of receiving a copy of the report from either Parent or the independent evaluators, unless Parent and Walnut Valley agree to a different timeline. However, Parent may choose to review each independent educational evaluation as they are finished or wait to review them all at once. Parent must advise Walnut Valley of such choice in writing, by sending an email after completion of each independent educational evaluation, to the then current director of special education and Student’s then current IEP case manager. The parties may otherwise agree to a different point of contact.

7. Walnut Valley shall fund the independent assessors’ participation in the IEP team meeting, including up to two hours of preparation time, and round-trip travel time, if the assessor chooses to participate in the IEP team meeting in person. If Student’s IEP team does not complete the review of the independent educational evaluations in a single IEP team meeting, Walnut Valley shall fund the relevant assessors’ participation, as described above, for a second IEP team meeting. No further funding for additional IEP team meetings shall be required.

8. Within 30 days from the date of this Decision, Walnut Valley shall contract with an independent expert in state and federal special education laws, such as a nonpublic agency or independent law firm who regularly practices special education law, to provide no less than two hours of training to Walnut Valley special education staff responsible for developing and issuing assessment plans, including IEP case managers, who worked with Student and members of his IEP team, and those who are anticipated to work with him during the 2026-2027 school year. This training shall include requirements for initial and triennial assessment plans, including providing parents with the required documents in their native language and timely providing parents copies of assessment reports. This training shall be completed by December 31, 2026. This training may be completed by the law firm who represented Walnut Valley at the due process hearing.

9. Within 45 days of this Decision, Walnut Valley shall provide Parent with a translated copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report in Mandarin. Walnut Valley shall ensure that the Mandarin copy of the March 25, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report is properly stored in Student’s educational record.

10. All other relief requested by Student 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.

Ashok Pathi

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings