Parent says district transportation left autistic 5-year-old unsupervised; files state complaint

A parent told the Moreland School District Board of Trustees on Oct. 25 that the district’s transportation practices put his 5‑year‑old son with autism at risk and that district staff declined to place an adult‑to‑adult handoff requirement in the child’s individualized education program (IEP).

Adam Pulos, who identified himself during the meeting’s public‑comment period, said his son Elliot’s IEP requires adult support during transitions but that the transportation section does not specify “adult‑to‑adult” handoff language. Pulos said that gap allowed buses to remove adult escorts over the summer. He reported two safety incidents: one in which his son was dropped off at the wrong house and another in which the child was left in the street without an adult handoff.

Pulos said he filed a formal complaint with the California Department of Education on Sept. 8 and that the district’s response included a letter from the district attorney that he described in his remarks as “hostile, inaccurate, and clearly intended to intimidate my family.” He told the board that district staff refused to amend the IEP and instead suggested waiting until December. “Now you all already knew about that,” Pulos said during his remarks. “You knew about the CDE notes. But what you didn't know is how your staff chose to respond.”

The parent asked the board to direct the superintendent to amend the IEP immediately to require an adult‑to‑adult handoff at both school and home and to require that drivers or equivalent providers confirm handoffs in writing to the family. In his remarks he characterized staff changes to his son’s transportation — which he called “private directives” made without IEP amendment or prior written notice — as unilateral reductions in services that are prohibited under state and federal law.

Board members did not take action during the public‑comment period. Board rules reiterated at the start of the meeting (citing the Brown Act) prohibit the board from acting on items not on the posted agenda; the board may, however, instruct the superintendent to follow up. The superintendent’s report and later agenda items did not show a board directive on the complaint during the meeting’s public session.

The parent provided the board with the date of the CDE complaint; he said the CDE investigation is active. The board did not dispute the account during the public comment period and did not announce any immediate change to Elliot’s IEP on the record.

What happened next: the board continued with scheduled reports and action items. The district’s formal response to the CDE complaint and any subsequent IEP changes were not recorded in the public portion of the meeting.

Why it matters: Pulos’s account raises procedural questions about notice and due process in special education services and highlights a live CDE investigation. The board can lawfully ask the superintendent to follow up and can place potential policy or corrective items on a future agendized meeting for action or formal response.