L.B., a middle school student in the San Diego Unified School District, had a history of significant mental health challenges, including suicidal ideation and repeated hospitalizations. In December 2019, after meeting with L.B.’s parents, the District developed an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that offered specialized academic instruction, mental health services, and placement at Riley Alternative School, a public program designed for students with severe emotional or behavioral difficulties.
L.B.’s parents initially accepted the IEP but soon concluded that it did not adequately address his needs during the 2020–21 school year, when the District provided only virtual instruction because of the COVID-19 pandemic. L.B. struggled with online learning and experienced escalating behavioral and emotional difficulties at home.
In September 2020, L.B.’s parents unilaterally placed him in an out-of-state residential wilderness therapy program that provided in-person education and treatment. After several months, they enrolled him in a second residential treatment center in South Carolina. During this period, the parents continued to participate in multiple meetings with the District’s IEP team and repeatedly requested that the District fund L.B.’s residential placement.
In August 2022, L.B. filed a due process complaint with the California Office of Administrative Hearings seeking reimbursement from the District for the costs of his residential placements. After a multi-day hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied relief, concluding that the District had no duty to offer L.B. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) while he attended the private programs because his parents had not expressly requested an IEP.
A district court affirmed the ALJ’s ruling, reasoning that although the parents had requested several IEP meetings, they had not requested an IEP “document,” and therefore the District had no obligation to prepare or offer an IEP during the period of private placement. L.B. appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court and ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard. The Ninth Circuit explained that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), states receiving federal education funding must provide children with disabilities a FAPE through an individualized education program developed by an IEP team that includes both school officials and parents. The court emphasized that the IEP process operates as a cooperative framework in which parents participate directly in developing and revising the educational plan for the child. When parents believe a district has failed to provide a FAPE, they may place their child in a private school and later seek reimbursement if the public program proves inadequate.
Applying this framework, the Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that the District had no duty to offer L.B. a FAPE because his parents did not specifically request an “IEP document.” The Ninth Circuit explained that both federal and California law establish that the purpose of an IEP meeting is to develop, review, or revise the student’s IEP to ensure that the child receives a FAPE. Because L.B.’s parents repeatedly participated in IEP meetings and discussed his educational needs during the period at issue, the District maintained a continuing obligation to offer a FAPE. The Ninth Circuit further noted that the District itself recognized that obligation and continued to offer L.B. placement at Riley as its proposed educational program. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by focusing on the terminology used by the parents rather than on whether the District fulfilled its statutory duty to offer an appropriate program.
The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the district court misapplied the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision in Capistrano Unified School District v. S.W. In Capistrano, the parents withdrew their child from the public school system and failed to respond to the district’s request to convene an IEP meeting, leaving the district with no opportunity to develop a plan. By contrast, L.B.’s parents actively participated in multiple IEP meetings and communicated with the District about his educational needs during his private placement. The Ninth Circuit therefore determined that the circumstances in this case differed fundamentally from those in Capistrano.
Because the district court concluded that the District had no duty to offer L.B. a FAPE, it did not determine whether the IEP that the District offered satisfied the IDEA. The Ninth Circuit explained that this inquiry forms the first step of the reimbursement analysis. If the District failed to provide a FAPE, the court must then determine whether the parents’ private placement was appropriate and whether equitable considerations support reimbursement.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the District’s proposed IEP provided L.B. a FAPE and, if not, whether the private placements were appropriate and reimbursement or other equitable relief may be warranted.
L.B. v. S.D. Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2026, No. 24-5543) 2026 LX 40823.