Parents allege school mistreatment of autistic child as Cherry Creek faces federal civil rights investigation

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

In response to concerns raised by a family in Colorado about the treatment of their young son in kindergarten, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education opened an investigation into whether the Cherry Creek School District was in compliance with federal civil rights and special education law, a problem that is not new to the district. 

The concern was raised after months of unanswered questions, the parents said.

Special Education Changes the Parents Say Were Never Explained

Ana and Brandon Lantz’s son started kindergarten in 2023. As time went on in the school year, records indicate that their son received special instruction outside of the general classroom. At first, it was small group instruction. Then, it was one-on-one instruction.

According to a school district document dated November 27, 2023, their son was given one-on-one instruction after having difficulty in small group instruction. He was also considered a multi-language learner.

Ana and Brandon say they were not informed of this change at the time and would not have consented to individual instruction, noting the only meeting to discuss services occurred on March 11, 2024, when they agreed to no such placement.

A School Evaluation the Family Disputes

In February 2024, the district carried out a two-day process involving a speech language and multilingual evaluation. The assessments stated that the Lantzes child had difficulties with step-by-step instructions, tended to use English when addressed in Spanish—as well as provided some unrelated responses to the provided questions. 

District evaluation documents describe language-related challenges. Among them: difficulty responding to abstract questions, trouble explaining experiences under stress, and a tendency to answer with concrete or unrelated details rather than direct explanations. 

The parents disagreed with the school’s evaluation. The parents say the evaluations should have been handled by a multilingual speech and language pathologist familiar with normal language mixing in young bilingual children. They also say their son was threatened and humiliated in ways that harmed his self-confidence.

Ana speaks Castilian Spanish in their home. According to her, when their son was addressed using other Spanish dialects during multilingual instruction at school, he would likely become confused and unresponsive.

“He Was Scared”: Growing Resistance to School

As the school year progressed, the parents say their son began resisting school. When he started missing days, including an entire week, they say it coincided with visible anxiety — anxiety he could not clearly explain. He only told his parents that he was scared. 

“Our son is autistic and ADHD; it’s really difficult for him to express his emotions when he’s scared, afraid or anxious, it’s way different than neurotypical children.” Emails show that the Lantzes repeatedly contacted the school asking what was happening during the day and how their son was being supported.

“They never give us a clear answer.”

One incident, that was particularly concerning, involved the Hawk Nest aftercare program.

Ana emailed the school asking that her son be dismissed at the regular time—instead of being sent to aftercare—because he no longer wanted to go. 

But the following day, he was sent to Hawk Nest anyway. It was difficult for Ana to locate her child. The Lantzes took him out of aftercare permanently after that incident. 

Allegations of Seclusion and Abuse

The Lantzes were preparing to send their son to first grade during the summer of 2024. 

In a written account later provided to investigators, Ana described a moment that alarmed her. After telling her son who his first-grade teacher would be, she wrote that he said the teacher was “mean,” “rude,” and that “she yelled” things such as “Sit on your chair,” “Do your papers” and “Don’t go outside.”

Ana has explained that references to going “outside” were later clarified by her son to mean being allowed out of a small enclosed “zipper closet,” not outside the building.

As he spoke, Ana documented that he mimicked a slap in the face, he slapped one cheek and then the other cheek, saying “aquí, aquí” and mimicked they hit him on each thigh, stating, “dos, dos.” 

When Brandon asked their son about it later, the parents say he added something else: “she pulled and twisted my ear really hard.” When asked if it made him cry, he said, “Just a little.”

“I could not believe what I was hearing… it was my son, my baby telling me he’s yelled at at school and slapped and hit by teachers,” Ana stated. 

The Lantzes also say their son described being placed alone in a room at school with the lights off. When asked how long he was in there, he replied “too long”—another moment that broke Ana’s heart, she says. 

They say the district has denied using seclusion in this case, but admitted to having something called a “safety room” that is no longer used. This would not be the first time the district had been accused of using seclusion rooms without notifying parents. 

The Lantzes say that these revelations raised important concerns about documentation, due process observance, and safety measures.

They asked the district administrators if the teacher who would be teaching their son in first grade had worked with him in kindergarten. Administrators told them she had not.

Later, they obtained records that contradict that statement.

STAR assessment documents from spring 2024 list their son under a class group associated with that teacher. Internal emails dated January 22, 2024, referencing “STAR small groups,” included her among recipients. Those records became central to disputes over staffing history and accuracy.

A Forensic Interview Under Scrutiny

As the Lantzes’ concerns about their son’s treatment at school escalated, they say communication with the district became increasingly strained. They later learned that the school, acting under its obligations as a mandatory reporter, had referred their own concerns to the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office. 

A forensic interview of the child was scheduled in August 2024 at Sungate Kids.The parents were not notified until 11 days later and say they never received documentation explaining what was reported. 

As depicted in the video recording of the interview, the interviewer asked the child to say “I don’t know” if he did not know the answer to the question. When the interviewer asked the child a test question about the meaning of “ocular pigmentation,” he gave unrelated answers, including references to going outside. The parents say this type of question can create anxiety in autistic children. 

When asked, he said he did not want to talk about school—a point where the interview should have ended, Ana believes, because her young son had set that boundary.

In response to whether anyone had hurt him in aftercare, he answered “yes” once, then answered “no” when asked again. His parents say that asking the question a second time can make him feel like he gave the wrong answer the first time and that he should change it in compliance. 

As questioning turned to school and teachers, he became noticeably more restless. He fidgeted more as those topics arose. He admitted there was at least one teacher he did not like. Redactions make it difficult to determine whether the teachers mentioned during questioning were the same or different. He once claimed that it was because he couldn’t go outside.

When questioned, he responded “yes” that he felt safe both at home and school. Ana believes this response contradicts other statements and shows his readiness for the interview to end. 

The interviewer told him at the beginning that there were cameras and a person watching them. Ana believes this, considering his autism, which would affect how he would respond to someone unfamiliar to him. 

The Lantzes’ son was briefly left alone when the interviewer eventually left the room at one point. He looked at the camera and tried leaving the room—which was locked. 

It took months before the Lantzes were provided with a copy of the interview. Portions of the video were redacted. Ana has said she believes additional detail was revealed during moments that are no longer audible.

Restricted Access and a CPS Report

The parents say their access to the school narrowed further.

They report being denied requests to tour classrooms and other rooms their son may have attended, later being barred from district property, blocked from the online parent portal, and experiencing rejected or blocked email communications with district staff. 

District correspondence confirms that access restrictions were imposed, though the district described those measures as necessary while cooperating with an investigation by law enforcement. 

The Lantzes say they were reported twice to Child Protective Services by the school district in March 2025 for educational neglect, child abuse and safety concerns. They feel this was both retaliatory for going public about it and say it was emotionally stressful for them. CPS involved the court and the case was later dismissed.

What Federal Investigators Are Now Reviewing

By September 2024, Ana and Brandon Lantz had taken their concerns to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Later that December, the OCR officially started its investigation.

The Office for Civil Rights is investigating if there has been discrimination against children with disabilities, if there has been a denial of sufficient education for these children, if there has been a denial of access to educational records for parents, if restraint or seclusion was used, if the school used retaliation and if there has been a failure to investigate and protect against abuse.

The Lantzes say that when they asked questions, they encountered resistance, contradictions, and were cut off from communication.

Ana wrote in a message, “I feel upset for all they got away with and sometimes, defeated. What happened to my boy is like a grief… but it feels like a grief that I won’t ever learn how to live with.” 

“I’m not going to stop. I owe this to my son and to all the children and students that have been abused and nothing happened. And to all those that are abused right now and no one will do anything,” she continued, “This is not only about my son, this is about integrity, this is about dignity, about respect. I can’t believe this government is so bad.”

The outcome of the investigation may clarify not only what happened in this case, but how districts respond when parents press for answers before harm can be fully understood.

Editor’s Note: The Office for Civil Rights investigation into Cherry Creek School District remains ongoing. No determinations have been made at this time. This article is based on public records, school records, documents, emails, evaluation records, interview materials, and written accounts provided by the family.