representing her here because we couldn't afford to continue with counsel and so i will do my best today i would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal if i may try to help you keep your eye on the park ok ok thank you  there are five main issues before the court today the lack of parental participation and the meeting and resulting i p accompanying with that is the denial of yes why service determined in that same meeting also the lack of appropriate transition plans and services in the claim period i p's as well as they are to implement speech and language for almost a year and failure implement to mass services for an entire semester so i'm a little unclear about exactly what happened at the meeting the one of  you had to advocates as well as family members meeting with the school officials they met for one of the i think it's good that he or she had to leave after and the african has to leave the school official said well we need to finish this today but we'll give you a chance to review it later and here's the part among clear on it looks like all of you just walk out i don't understand why why that occurred sure i will be happy to explain that so throughout the meeting the school district reminded us repeatedly how much limited time was remaining at the beginning of the meeting or advocates who was there with another training advocate did say she had to leave after two hours the meeting was scheduled and agreed upon for two hours the school district scored an eight or who was but didn't didn't your team you and your team meet with the district again in january and february of two thousand and thirteen to go over the i p to discuss whether there was agreement on  that there were after the fact meetings in january and in february your honor one was to address transition issues one was to address speech and language and those meetings were limited to that but but you know what i'm saying is if i know your basic claim you didn't now that's actually not true because there were numerous substantive areas of the ip that we had not yet reviewed in fact the school district admits and its prior written notice which by the way was the st time that parents were or even knew that they continued to meet without us they were also leaving the meeting was ending but you say they believe me the school disclosed to us i apologize yes we were not aware that they were going to continue meaning they wanted to complete the document not could be something that was actually the school district representative kept saying you know x actually near the at the end meaning she said before we meet to reconvene and that's when our advocate said but wait a minute we can implement this it's not hare who was conducting the meeting for the district also said she had to leave when they advocate such she had to leave they both had to leave she was ending the meeting she said before we meet to reconvene and that's when we realize they're going to try to implement this we haven't discussed special education services or minutes or related let us say convene i don't and i know i'm confused i thought they were going to need to continue the disc reconvening to continue the discussion that's what we understood but as it turned out we later received the prior written notice notifying us that the school district had gone i had met alone without us for another twenty minutes made the remainder of the decisions without us we had  they were they said they told you that they met you disagree you met again in january and february of two thousand and thirteen to talk about any issues that were in dispute is out wrong they did say that that that's what they were going to do but that violates this court's decision and the dog see case we requested that now he says recounting that case is very different i've done a lot of i d e a cases and i can tell you that these are not perfect but you're entitled to due process you're entitled to make your position known the school district needs to respond and i'm struggling frankly to see where you didn't get on this particular piece or you didn't get  process you met for a long time you had lawyers there you're a lawyer your mother you're her chief advocate you're left to you have to leave they they they they met with you then again in january in february if you had a problem with the  you could raise it then right so you weren't deprived of due process well we we did raise the issue that the remaining decisions had not yet been made we didn't actually have legal counsel with us but it was the law requires that the school district even though the ip expiring would still have had to provide our daughter was services so and they they claimed if i understand correctly they claimed that in order to do that they had to finish d e p in the time frame work involved and that's why they went on this additional short period of time i guess from my perspective i hope you have a better argument than this one because you've got to process and under the idea that's what you're entitled to so maybe we can move on to your what you believe are your more persuasive arguments while the school district i printed participation as a very vital issue and i did we had no idea they were going to continue to meet without us or we would have stayed are understanding your honor was that they were going to implement the ip they had drafted before the meeting they were not going to continue the meeting itself well i thought they said i thought they said we were going to finish the are you here tonight who said that the ip document yes that would have been this hair of the school district or the street and it was that point that you said all the you were surprised when no at that point we said are you going to  implement this ip when we haven't gone over all of these other sections and she said that's the direction where you knew you were at the meeting rightly or wrongly the school district intended to finish the we knew they meeting to finish the coalition to tell you what are you saying that's not accurate they were saying they were going to complete that i e p but not the meeting this hair even said she had to leave  and that was understanding they were implementing at the end because they didn't want to be out of compliance with the deadline which doug see says you have to prioritize parental participation over  next wiring well then i'm i guess i have trouble when i listen to the tape as to who was saying which side was saying what so what was it that you wanted to happen when they said we're going to finish it tonight we asked that they not implemented but that they allow us to come back and have a nd meaning to meeting two to finish the discussion as opposed to just implementing what they drafted before so who who did you maybe i didn't understand who did you say who said when we reconvene that would be mr hare she was of the school district correct sure of violation if a school district creates an ip without parents they are not allowed to cure that by and after the fact subsequent meeting well if after the end of the two hours there were still things to be discussed and i believe one of the advocate listed them yes then what should have happened i'm not understood quite understand what you say should have been done sure the school district could have very easily scheduled a nd meeting so that we could have completed the discussion that has happened in the past you know when when was the deadline and i believe it was just summer rd and as i recall we even proposed dates prior to that that lines of what they didn't have to miss a deadline but that was rejected by the school district you want to save time it's up to your good morning good morning aaron walls on behalf of the peoria unified school district and just to correct something that i just heard parent stated that she offered to meet again before the deadline that's not in the record that is not what happened here as to the parental participation st off this parent participated there's no denial of purchase of haitian a draft was circulated before the meeting there was a history with district and parent parent ten or advocates would go through the draft they'd mark it all up they'd walk into a meeting we've got we've got stuff to talk about this time they've got the draft they walked into the meeting there's no edits there's no revisions there's a statement by an advocate we're never going to agree to this so two hours as counting down and everybody it's heated it's one of those we've got we've got winds drawn and everybody i'm sorry no i was not there was no attorney for the district present but i listen to the recording as well and it's heated and one of the advocates says she has to go there is no question that this team intended to complete the meeting parents stated no reason that she had to leave the other advocate present had no reason to leave so when we look at what this court held in shapiro if there is an affirmative refusal to participate the district can proceed there is nothing more affirmative than standing up and walking out if i stand up and walk out of this court will you're asking me questions you are going to see that as refusal so the premise of you're not planning on doing no you know i am not your honor i would not do it but but if i did i know what you would think i would think the same thing well here here's what's troubling me if if they've met and this is difficult this is a very seriously incapacitated child in there are serious problems here and there are a lot of details and a lot of things that need to be worked out in and i e p so they they are they're going to meet for two hours and if the if the parents say they're the advocate for the parent of the parent says we're going to we have to leave we're going to have to come back later and finish this and the and the and the district says no we're going to finish it tonight whether you are here or not that seems to me to be very problematic as far as whether the parents were given their right to participate in this law and under the purpose of the statute so i'm just i'm not understanding who in the meeting was trying to get it reconvene so they could finish it sounded to me like it was the advocate for the parents and that the school district was since insisting no whether you're here or not we're going to finish it show in the two hours that had already gone by the just or kept trying to move it forward because everyone knew there was a deadline and it was facing a situation where that deadline being that the the dead the deadline to renew the i e the year ok correct so there were there were a couple of things that were going to happen the ip that was in place was drafted by students private placement one year prior she was now in a district high school with no goals left to work on so the district knew that something had to be in place to implement it was happy to come back and talk about it more but they had well the deadline was december rd and this took place when i believe december november th is the day should we have four days my recollection when i check the calendar as we also have a weekend in there but in order to continue to provide faith the district made a reasonable determination at the time now keep in mind doug see didn't exist yet and november th but the district still made a reasonable determination under shapiro which was we have to give this student face she doesn't have any goals her parent is choosing to walk out we're almost done come on let's just they hash out all the goals they hash out all the present level there were no dramatic changes made from draft to implementation version well somebody i thought was one of the advocates said the we have all these things still to to discuss it was one of the advocates you're correct so what the district really that they they were taking the position this isn't you know i agree that is the position that they took and the just her response to that is they still participate they had a draft they looked at it they this is a review we're sitting in an i p meeting this is the time to review it not to accept every single input that the parent in upon and if there was a very i mean this is a back and forth it's they don't have a veto right there is no parental veto so the draft that they were presented with i gather that the district takes the position that it ma reasonable determination that contrast in continuing the meeting to finish the i p or so that it would be timely particular get listed and then placement versus taking a chance that it would be the there's this requirement that the ministry of law judge issue the final written decision seventy five dollars days after the filing of a due process complaint and that wasn't remotely complied with was it no it was not however that is again a procedural violation there has to be some attendant denial of faith and there is no guess what it bothers her how long was it i you know from the when the hearing concluded to the issuance i think it's about four months and isn't the reason congress put that requirement in there is because the very nature of these cases require some expedition we're dealing here with the ongoing education of seriously disabled people and we need to is prior to the actual hearing and that was a parent based issue those were choices made by parent to delay to continue to prolong we did not work and we're not picking that fight because it is part of our system in arizona the for the most part those requests are given but the truth is that we can only fight so many battles and if a parent wants to delay the hearing  six months that's going to happen what we can do as a public school district in arizona is ask the ale jase to expedite those the final decisions this one took four months it is a forty one dollars page decision and in his defense i would say that at the time he wrote this decision this was the longest hearing in arizona oh a history so it was the big h the idea of i d e s i mean the bottom line is we're trying to help the student that's the real issue a great there are due process requirements involved i've never seen a perfect he never seen a perfect faith they've just people there's a given a take and you try to make it work if there's a delay it's kind of like what we deal with the terms of equitable stoppel and and things of that nature where what was the damage what was who was hurt and i gather from your documentation your perspective about the delay and the ninety day hearing thing was hey nobody really got hurt here we be the student got what was stated in the i e p a d the l j found that so if there was a delay it was a procedural delay without what we would call prejudice in our setting here if you agree with that i would agree with that your honor it's what i call a no harm no foul there simply was no i tend harm to the student certainly that her mother ever alleged so there is nothing on that piece in the record that would substantiate that denial of faith based on they were not very well drafted situation about the transition was there something about working on their mother's office or something else if if that if there is a poorly drafted portion of  the whose fault is that is that is that the burden of the student and the student represented to come forward with what in this case she wanted to do or the school district responsible for ginning that out of particular student rian in our new language out avenger if these were her unique circumstances she was unable to articulate post secondary goals the two thousand and ten i p parent says and i'm paraphrasing not quoting as they're talking about transition service says she's going to work at my office when she's done with high school we don't need to do that it has to transition services in the two thousand eleven i p the districts trying to work on transition service says and the advocate the same one who had to leave in two thousand and twelve in eleven says that's all she can handle don't put any more in so the district is trying to figure out how do we help this student the parent is trying to help she didn't have any more ideas of what this student wanted to do in fact their own transition expert who they hired in january of two thousand and thirteen couldn't come up with any more specificity so it was just students unique circumstances she or her maturity was delayed and general at least is continuing to provide those services she's taking financial math she's taking life skills classes this is is moving her forward in the only way the district can when no one will say i'd like to do a on a path to be one thing or another as to the speech services in two thousand and eleven those services were offered multiple times by multiple providers to providers at students private school that parents expressed she did not like she didn't like who they were how they worked with student and declined literally ceased speech services the district then offered to bus students to a district school to receive speech services and parent declined that and instead is now set in seeking compensatory services the law's pretty clear that you're not allowed to choose the staff as a parent that provides the service says there were there was a ready willing and able offer at a private placement there was another offer by the district at least one and these were all declined so there is no right to compensatory services as to that and finally the claim on math services feels a little bit like a moving target parent requested sixty nine hours of compensatory education in the administrative tribunal the a l j who heard all the evidence and was in the best position ordered forty now parents claiming twelve thousand one hundred and twenty would have been in a group setting the forty was with a one on one instructor i don't know what parent wanted the sixty nine is what she requested of one on one the forty is one is also one on one if there are any further question that the district made admissions that they had failed to provide appropriate assessments for transition had failed to fany with regard to transition services  ask you you're her mom yes what did you tell the district your daughter wanted to do and you want to build into the transitional portion of the i mean i don't recall specifically there were several meetings predicament i mean we can't always tell our kids what would be great but if she doesn't we ever tell her that if she doesn't tell you and you don't know how is the district supposed to know what you want to do well the district's a transition experts testified that it was the district responsibility to help or located direction after we fell for due process your honour's the district submitted a whole slew of transition assessments that they admitted usually take three to four years that was not done during the course and also i just want to note with respect to the ip meeting we didn't leave early we actually stayed late we didn't choose to end the meeting that district was ending the meeting and also the with respect to the delay i think it was six months before the l g issued his want the courts to do you know you want compensation for what you've had to spend but so far services and other things what can be done yes  would like to have to finish compensated for what the school district should have provided with respect to transition and speech and math services and we're certainly open to working with the district on what that looks like depending of course on what this court does and and if there's a remained but certainly we're willing to work with them to ensure that she doesn't receive money damages that what you're looking for yes know the questions michael thank you both we know these are difficult cases and to be for you as a mom so we empathize with that but as you know we have to follow the law so we'll do our best ok very good thank you thank you both the case just argued