Parents, advocates press Moreno Valley board to return 8‑year‑old to school after months away

Brenda Guzman, the mother of an 8‑year‑old student, told the Moreno Valley Unified School District Board that her daughter has been out of school since Feb. 26 and that repeated requests for independent educational evaluations (IEEs), compensatory services and home/hospital instruction have not been meaningfully answered. “My daughter has been out of school since February 26th and despite months of meetings, emails, records requests, medical documentation, and repeated attempts to collaborate, we’re still waiting for meaningful answers and solutions,” Guzman said.

A string of speakers in the public‑comment portion of the meeting described a similar account: family members and medical providers have documented concerns about the child’s return to the current school setting; the family has repeatedly requested prior written notice and assessments; and parents said they were asked to attend meetings that did not resolve the underlying safety and access issues. Fernando Avarca, a relative, said he believes the child’s trauma is real and asked the board to “stand up for her.”

Other speakers — including the child’s grandmother, an aunt and community advocates — urged the board to expedite written responses, to provide interim instructional supports and to ensure that the family’s requested evaluations are processed. Several speakers said that messages and contemporaneous text communications from a one‑on‑one aide shortly after the incident were not fully reflected in official incident reports, and that the family has seen inconsistent documentation over time.

Board members and district staff listened and responded with procedural notes. The superintendent and district staff said they would work through the district’s administrative processes and that investigators and special‑education staff are involved in follow‑up. Board members publicly urged the district to engage directly with the family and to provide clarity on next steps; they also acknowledged the emotional tenor of the comments and the need for timely written responses.

The comments were made during the board’s non‑agenda public comment session and drew audible support from the audience. The board did not take immediate formal action at the meeting on the family’s requests; several trustees and the superintendent said staff would follow up and that some next steps would be pursued through the district’s special‑education and legal processes.

The board’s agenda included many items that evening — bargaining updates, budget matters and a strategic‑planning consultant selection — and the family’s appeals were among a broader set of community requests the trustees heard.