about pain but my understanding is and this is what my i'm not sure i have because it's not clear on the record because i'm talking about a year that's not before us it's late right but from what i could read what i understand hamsters first i want to say something that i think is right as a matter of law and you can correct me if you disagree someone is subject to a stay put order has a being and the only reason this matters and they do we should drop it because it's kind of hard down the road but to get a reality check on how much money we're talking about it would seem logical that and i think this a lot too stating that there that the place was going to be in a school in his home community which doesn't meet the standards of union school which says that the placement must be specific and that the placement must be a written offer of an educational setting you know i'm assuming assume that the written here under the written offer or proposal doesn't meet the standard is there a way around that if it's clear that the parties understood what was on offer under the good school the court made it clear that it had to be specific should give  harmless error if it becomes if it is clear that the party is actually understood what was being offered passion or are you saying that if they had understood that would be sufficient but they didn't understand what you say i would say there's no escape in most gay pacho doesn't matter so even if karen understood perfectly that baldwin high school with everything that she was asking for that doesn't that doesn't cure the problem that does not cure the problem well let me ask you in your view that double hearsay she heard at the school room jeter was talking about transitioning marcus to baldwin and that there was some discussion about baldwin going participate in that discussion there is no evidence no testimony that the parent purchaser pated in any of those discussions the testimony includes that that there is a transition or respond to the question whether the residential costs should be reimbursed as part of the state you'd simply if you kind of just have very little about that and it would be helpful i mean if that were true then most someplace far from your house you can't live there then paying for living there is part of partner and child is that correct that much more generally speaking i don't think that's generally speaking correct on correct system which means then that he's not been there pleased at parents choice he's been placed there pursuant to an obligation given that there's an obligation the state to pay for the schooling of loveland that takes it out of the category in which you're trying to put it so the question then becomes given that there is an obligation for the state to pay for the education and love lunch pursuant to stink put the question is whether he's was properly raised in the district court and is now properly in front of us do you have any other defense to the award of expenses for residence while he's going to love one pursuant to  hypothetically be other places he could go to school on maui is around the event for purposes of associated residential expenses because he's legally entitled to be a lovelorn for school but again even in the previous case which i'm not there because the world is going to live again private placements are places of choice sometimes and in this case this isn't a choice where we wish you well and you may you've gone off the rails again for at least i don't understand you to be staying on the rails  private placements a matter of choice what kind of placement are you now talking about loving academy but that was not pursuant to choice he's there pursuant to a stay put not true he can all be regardless if you're in state  l do the benefits associated with the placement so long as the placement exists the parents entitle to the benefits associated with the parent isn't tied look stay put are you saying that if you have a state any residential component correct that was adjudicated by the state court and that that was a lot of that was raised what the state court did was to say well there's no requirement to pay for the residence because that included a mental health component and because it was a mental health component rather than residential that doesn't come under the terms of the statute and the regulation that was a money house but you've already told us that there's no issue listen on that because you no longer mine a doing we're now talking straight residential where the residential was mental health treatment so by your very own terms the fact that the state court said no residential doesn't mean anything because right because the state court was mrs was premised upon i mean mental health when this case look like it's a matter of facility what they have is a therapeutic living component which is after school he goes to live with one of the still str example you and now cost more if you take the bart train you don't get that extra money time so we'll make sure you get a chance to say what you need to say thank you post a list of five minutes on the clock and see what happens thank you  which is a fact summer of this but when students placement is too far to over this too far or way to make daily transportation reasonable the state has to pay for is if there was no a very imminent that the state offer residential placement which is a program that incorporates housing and at the state has to pay for that housing that's that state has to pay for housing expenses the argument i heard from the state was that the original settlement under which marcus started going to school of loveland yes he did not include  be the it's a union school situation where it's the student was offered the treatment too far away from the home and requires housing as a related service under that agreement or under that scenario so