Ninth Circuit Clarifies District Obligations When Parents Are Engaged in the IEP Process During Private Placement

06.18.2026

On February 27, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in L.B. ex rel. Morrisey v. San Diego Unified School District, 168 F.4th 1150 (9th Cir. 2026), reversing the district court’s denial of reimbursement for a student’s placements at two private residential treatment centers. The Court held that where parents remain engaged in the IEP process and participate in Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) meetings, they need not separately request an IEP “document” to require a school district to continue offering a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).

Background

L.B. was a middle school student enrolled in the San Diego Unified School District. He had significant mental health needs, including suicidal ideation, that required several hospitalizations. In December 2019, the District developed an IEP offering specialized instruction, mental health services, and placement at Riley Alternative School (“Riley”), a public school that provided intensive mental health support.

In April 2020, after an earlier due process filing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which the parents agreed to the District’s proposed IEP, including placement at Riley for the 2020-2021 school year. However, when the school year began in fall 2020, District schools were physically closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and instruction was provided virtually. L.B. struggled with virtual learning. He missed classes, became agitated and aggressive toward family members, and described a plan to harm himself.

Less than one month into the school year, the parents notified the District that L.B. would attend Trails Carolina (“Trails”), a residential wilderness therapy program in North Carolina. The District responded that it would not fund the placement because it believed it had already offered L.B. an IEP that provided FAPE. The parents later enrolled L.B. at Whetstone Academy, a second residential treatment center in South Carolina.

During the private placement, the parents continued to participate in meetings with the District’s IEP team. The District referred to those meetings as IEP meetings, followed standard IEP meeting procedures, and continued to identify Riley as its offer of FAPE. The parents later filed for due process, seeking reimbursement for the private residential placements.

The Administrative Law Judge denied reimbursement, concluding that the District had no duty to offer FAPE during the private placements because the parents had not expressly requested an IEP. The federal district court affirmed, distinguishing between a request for an IEP “meeting” and a request for an IEP “document.”

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court held that the distinction between requesting an IEP meeting and requesting an IEP document has no basis in the IDEA or California law. The Court explained that the purpose of an IEP meeting is to develop, review, or revise an IEP that offers the student a FAPE. Therefore, whether the parents used the words “IEP meeting” or “IEP document” did not control.

The Court also found that the District’s own conduct showed it understood the meetings to be part of the IEP process. The District labeled the meetings as IEP meetings, used standard IEP procedures, and continued to identify Riley as the District’s offer of FAPE. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the District owed L.B. a FAPE during the period at issue.

The Ninth Circuit distinguished Capistrano Unified School District v. S.W., 21 F.4th 1125 (9th Cir. 2021), on which the lower courts had relied. In Capistrano, the parents withdrew their child from the district, informed the district that the child would attend private school for two years, and did not respond to the district’s request to convene an IEP meeting. The Ninth Circuit found for the district, denied the reimbursement requested, and described those facts as an “unusual series of events.” By contrast, in L.B., the parents continued to participate in IEP meetings, communicated concerns about the student’s needs, and remained engaged in the IEP process. The Court therefore concluded that Capistrano did not support the distinction relied on by the district between an IEP “meeting” and an IEP “document.”

Remand

The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether the District’s IEP offer actually provided FAPE, or whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement. Instead, the Court remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the District offered FAPE from October 9, 2020 to December 2, 2021, and, if not, whether tuition reimbursement, attorneys’ fees, compensatory education, or other remedies are appropriate.

The Court also noted that reimbursement is not automatic. The parents’ failure to provide 10-day notice before placing L.B. at Trails may reduce or eliminate reimbursement, unless an exception applies. The Ninth Circuit left those issues for the district court to address on remand.

As of the date of this alert, there does not appear to be any further reportable decision on remand.

Implications for California School Districts

The decision clarifies that Capistrano is limited to circumstances where parents have effectively disengaged from the IEP process. Where parents remain engaged, request and attend IEP meetings, communicate concerns, or provide new information about the student’s needs, districts should continue to consider whether the student requires a revised offer of FAPE.

School districts should not rely on the absence of a formal request for an IEP “document” as a basis for declining to develop or revise an IEP where the parents are actively participating in IEP meetings. This is especially important when circumstances have changed, the parents have expressed dissatisfaction with the student’s program, or the student is privately placed and the parents may later seek reimbursement.

When these circumstances arise, districts should ensure that the IEP team reviews the student’s current needs, considers available information, and clearly documents the District’s offer of FAPE. A clear written offer remains one of the best ways to protect the district if the appropriateness of the program is later challenged.

If you have questions about this decision or how it may affect IEP obligations for parentally placed students, please contact the authors of this alert or your regular AALRR counsel.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2026 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo