Parents urge Bonita Unified to act after alleged custody verification failures and delayed IEP placement

Maria Bruce, a parent whose 13-year-old son Makai is covered by an individualized education program, urged the Bonita Unified School District board on Thursday to immediately approve a contract or authorize the district to proceed under a promissory agreement so her son can begin services a team agreed he needs.

Bruce told the board that an IEP team recommended residential placement on Nov. 3 and that, after casework to locate placements, a program in Missouri accepted the student on Dec. 12. She said the district declined to proceed under the program’s promissory agreement because board approval had not been obtained, and that the delay has prevented Makai from receiving services the IEP specified.

“This delay violates federal law,” Bruce said, referencing Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 300.323, which requires that once an IEP is developed, the district must implement services in accordance with that IEP “as soon as possible.” She asked the board to hold a special meeting, use emergency agenda procedures, or otherwise authorize staff to proceed so her son “can finally receive the services he’s been waiting for since November 3.”

Bruce described a multi-month process to place the student, including the district’s sending out releases of information and two programs initially accepting placement; she said one acceptance later was rescinded. She said the Missouri program would admit her son under a promissory agreement while a board contract was completed but that the district declined that route.

At the same meeting, Dr. Salmon Wang, who identified himself as the father of a San Dimas High School student, described an incident on Nov. 14 when, he said, school security denied him access to his daughter despite a custodial order on file. Wang said staff did not request his identification or review alternatives such as leaving a birthday cake with office staff, and he later says the incident was raised in family court and contributed to a reduction in his custody status. “What policies exist to verify custody and parental access? Were these policies followed on November 14?” Wang asked the board.

Neither parent reported receiving a substantive, on-the-record district action at the meeting to immediately address their specific requests. Board members did not announce an emergency agenda item or a vote on authorizing use of a promissory agreement during the session. The district had previously been notified of Bruce’s case by the mother of the student placement program, Bruce said, and she said she filed formal complaints with the district and with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.

Why it matters: Parents and advocates say delayed implementation of agreed special-education services can prolong harm for students who require intensive supports. Custody verification processes also have legal and safety implications for families and school staff when parental access is disputed.

What board members said: At this meeting speakers thanked volunteers and partners and discussed upcoming facilities planning and a possible bond, but the transcript records no board vote or formal direction to staff to immediately execute the specific placement or to reopen the earlier custody incident for corrective action.

Next steps: The board’s next regular meeting was announced for Feb. 4, 2026; Maria Bruce explicitly requested a special meeting or emergency agenda procedures to avoid further delays. The transcript does not record the board’s decision to call a special meeting by the end of this session.