D.O. v. Escondido Union School Dist.

A delay in proposing an autism assessment plan does not by itself constitute a procedural violation of IDEA. A procedural violation of IDEA constitutes a denial of FAPE if there are “procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe [on] the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, or . . . cause[] a deprivation of educational benefits.” Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 892 (9th Cir. 2001).

The Escondido Union School District evaluated D.O. for mental health services and behavioral intervention while he was enrolled. An external psychologist concluded D.O. appeared to meet criteria for autism spectrum disorder. Escondido was informed of the diagnosis but did not assess him for almost six months, in part due to D.O.’s mother’s delay in providing the written report. D.O.’s mother alleged Escondido’s delay in assessing D.O. for autism constituted a procedural violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and a denial of Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”). 

A delay in proposing an autism assessment plan does not by itself constitute a procedural violation of IDEA. Although the duty to assess was triggered upon notice of the diagnosis, the delay did not violate any statutory deadlines or timelines because the written report was not provided, which Escondido needed to develop their plan. Further, Escondido’s staff was reasonably skeptical because they observed D.O’s fluctuating behavior that was inconsistent with the diagnosis. The delay therefore did not constitute a procedural violation of IDEA. 

A procedural violation of IDEA constitutes a denial of FAPE if there are “procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe [on] the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, or . . . cause[] a deprivation of educational benefits.” Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877,  892 (9th Cir. 2001). Although delayed, Escondido eventually assessed D.O. for autism while maintaining his prior special education placement, meaning he was not deprived of educational benefits or an educational opportunity. Moreover, D.O.’s mother was never excluded from the IEP formulation process. Even if the delay were a procedural violation of IDEA, D.O. was not denied a FAPE. 

Reversed and remanded.