position then that none of the issues that were played in the complaint including the one judge the other judge fisher in the district court found was a kind of issue that could have been  work i'm not sure if they could do that however what they did is they will how do you know they are struggling the cost is the parents themselves who did the least well so why couldn't that be resolved an administrative proceeding i don't know if there's any one particular allegation it could have been however the the lion's share of the allegations could not have been addressed well that's not my question my question was when you said all of them all of them one hundred percent could not have been addressed in the administrative proceeding what i'm trying to get a handle on is there is a process that this court has made clear needs to be exhausted because the whole purpose of this administrative process is to growing the school district and disappointed or unhappy parents to a  process that provides an educational remedy it's the child who is the important person here and to the extent of parent is being screwed around if you will and and the implementation process is being compromised coming to federal court with a to get a can and you know the firing the cannon of monetary damages in retrospect may be appropriate in some point in the process but the point of at least as i understand your case law is to get the parties before a mediator if you will someone who can address the child's circumstance and w clearly troubled the district court here was that there were some elements of the complaint at least some elements of your complaint that could or should have been addressed at an administrator's hearing because otherwise you go to district court trying to referee something that for example the process of getting the meeting date so that the parents can go to i don't understand why that can't be remedied well it's not just to round out so you can address it all that's why i asked you at the beginning how long did the other process take if your answer is there's no immediate remedy it's not timely it's we can't you know it's in effect in a factual but i don't see that on the record i just see that they didn't do it well do know that what they can addressed it's been restricted to the identification evaluation or educational placement which does not allow for run that the situation where they've singled out the parents processes there to allow the parents to go in and say they are not wording the implementation obviously a lot of that may take place when they don't allow the parents to participate in the process appropriately that clearly is covered by was done to us it would be different your honour's if we were standing here before you say we're not we're not happy with the placement of their son we don't want the assessment or we don't like in a remote station where they're actually saying what you're saying you couldn't if they were if they found out that they were deliberately as you allege setting the meetings on different places at the same time to prejudice their participation in one of the the child to true that that that had nothing to do with the child that we had to have to do with tripping up interfere if we accept your complaint as true with the fair implementation the constructive implementation of the i am responding to the parents concerns and if they were deliberately scheduling  implementation meetings progress or peace failing to give reports those are processed sees that presumably need to be addressed a s a p not by a claim for damages to the parents later but they are they are back at them we're not saying we're not going to implement your id we're going to do all sorts of things to make sure that we punish and harm and retaliate and discriminate against the dancers that's hard how they took it but that the the effect of it was to prevent the parent from participating in what their parent is entitle to participate in which are meetings and getting progress report i would say that one particular allegation that i would concur that was that was the jewel of facts not a residual is the immediate effect we're not talking residual ality here we're talking about prejudice to the child and that's what i'm wondering as to why the parents didn't seek to get a remedy on behalf of their child why wasn't that taken futile and pointless because they continue through the process the real question is just as you're trying to pose is why didn't they if they had separate claims and i accept again at this stage they do why didn't they wait until after the administrative process of been completed to appropriate forum i don't agree with your colleagues that federal courts are not equipped or capable of assessing the harm that's caused from retaliation and discrimination so they didn't they did appeal and they did approach the federal courts in fact the subject to remediation through the administrative process it's clear that they have an opportunity to sue in federal court for retrospective damages what i am concerned about here because whatever we were to do in this case could set a precedent for how future disputes that arise during the implementation process are handled and if we say it's ok for the parents because they believe that without there being any showing that they have gone through that in a straight process and haven't been able to get around that he is that instead of trying to work it out for the benefit of the child and that is judge clifton posited whatever is left over that hasn't been able to be remedied can be properly brought in before a federal court but to make a federal case out of it before it has exhausted these administrative remedies seems to me purpose is to address educational issues as soon as they arise and have local educational agencies deal with those issues before you move on to the to the court system under the i exhausting requirement has been interpreted very broadly you can bring under the id a due process proceeding it's just not limited to the challenging of the scope of an existing repeat you cannot part and challenge any presented a claim on their own behalf crediting the school district has abused us because they didn't like that we were the squeaky wheel whatever else is that a claim that you think has a remedy under i different i really am trying to get your position here i'm trying to find out if you're saying the claim the parents brought is one that's cognizable under the i d e a or whether you're saying the god of this night or so before i turn to start talking was no thought you heard something that i heard you say something that suggested that there may be a claim for this under the act itself and i think the answer that question is no the parents claim is something separate but i haven't been able to get that answer from you so i'm go ideal procedures because the parents would claim you know it's perhaps part of their damages hosting money damages for retaliating no you are not but you you cannot dictate the form of the remedy process take before that kind of order can be obtained well it depends from from case to case but the parents would initiate a due process hearing and there would be a period of discovery you know the parties could go out in public a week to week or month to month interferences with the parents interaction with the school and with their children and you're saying that an administrative proceeding should be resorted to even if it may be at the end of the any action or claim that they wanted the child to have an eye during the rest of his education or had they settled already for homeschooling you know what home school was a part of the i p and that would be in effect through the state court order but what happened was the parents did at one point fell for due process hearing and that was for the zero three zero four school year the district meanwhile filed for due process to and the services that are going to be provid plan for those you know because they are the educational services for the old four or five school year the parents and the school district have to both agree on what the services are going to be they were able to reach that agreement and basically they were at a standstill so the last agreed upon i e pete would then you know what was for the parents protest i didn't agree to what they did to the disagreement was that the parents were very much in favor of shane being what they called mainstream and that is putting him into club regular school classroom the district on  parents accepted that didn't happen but they just didn't they decided to homeschool them that was part of the last agreed upon i mean what can happen is if the parents don't agree on the future place educational services for this child i mean they have the option of taking their child out of the school system if they wish and putting them in a private school or having private services and they can either fight if the child is totally out of the school system and they put him in a private school well what you're going to is the parents still would want reimbursement from the school because the school has an obligation to provide this student with an education and the school then would have the responsibility i mean parents not unusual for parents to go back to a public school and say i want you to provide tuition for me placing my child in private school but what the parents have to generally prove is that the public school could not serve that child's educational needs under the i d e a and in a lot of situations you can't where the child is in public school and the school district is having to pay for private school services because the school cannot provide educational services for the child one hundred percent and i think and i ask one other question and that's why i understand that  wright hurts questions of the district court and dismissed this without prejudice presumably on the theory that they would go exhaust the administrative remedies in so far as any of their claims alleged could be addressed administratively in whole or in part correct yes now given the posture of the case of his school situation what would happen picking the ground at the district court relied on the allegation refused to allow shane to attend and excuse me repeatedly refused to reimburse the could toss a used for shane's therapy now which the district court thought that there could be remedied district court and affirm the failure to exhaust the ruling the district court did not go through and say every one of those claims was addressable in the administrative proceeding it was looking to the administrative process to sort it out let's assume we affirm the district court at this stage of the relationship between the parents and the school district what the administrative proceeding is now available to them to address the issues that were alleged in their complaint is the ongoing administrative proceeding addressing any of those issues it could but it isn't yet not yet ok because this is the ongoing  relating to but it's already gone through the administrative proceeding to go see the order of what maintains a stay home school her that i'm not sure at what is what's the ongoing administrative perceiving  nature and that those allegations many you know play a part in the currency process proceeding because the parents are claiming that they were basically denied their believe that if you give the toss this relief you will render the exhaustion with requirements meaning less which would be somewhat absurd but the result that they are giving you also has observed consequences for example would appear that if a dispute simply administrative process to talk about how the school is actually assaulting them i'm not so sure that's the essence in any event that was of the essence of the district court ruling the district courts there it was that there are some of these allegations that could be  remedied in whole or in part by the administrative process so come back after you went out or made the record for example if you're going to get emotional distress damages seems to me an element of the emotional distress would be whether or not the scheduling conflicts were created which they probably would enormous emotional tension in the family but if they could have been remedied by simply getting an order from an administrative judge saying you can't do