because it is only do that if it's considering homelessness to continue right is the reason why it has as has been allowed to continue is solely because of the litigation in this matter and district in that looking at that child has decided this child is not god's unwitting nation as it as it was standing at the time we're not going to disrupt that child's education we're going to allow that child to continue school district however then t have been considered homeless but for the settlement agreement i don't know if that particular conversation took place but it was clearly contemplated between the parties when he said only agreement was being acknowledges that there is no continuing obligation of the school district beyond the fifteen sixteen school year to educate us and again with a more clean homelessness after the fifteen sixteen school year was inserted in that agreement if they still considered him to be the consideration for the for the promises of the forbearance is that were that were offered up for that settlement agreement were valley's supported by consideration the piece that we're looking at and the  agreement draft contains the language that said that just because the school district is providing at this consideration because they're providing a private school tuition for one year does not create an obligation for the school district to  what is so is that the person to whom the rose tree school district will look for determinations about homelessness i believe it is ok so this is a letter from september first twenty have the right under the federal making event the homelessness act to continue to be educated by the rose tree media school district since it is their school district of words and they are temporarily residing in a doubled up working situation does not fix regular adequate so now that i've quoted it to you is it were is it not to case that the person responsible for making these kind of decisions said you're home with son of yeah well your honor we believe that that letter was based on incorrect information that was provided to him the maternal grandmother yes with whom they were residing testified in her deposition that she signed the letter she didn't know who wrote it she didn't know what it said but we believe the letter said we have never been able to see the letter but we believe the letter said from the maternal grandmother i don't have the financial resources to maintain this family the family will have to move out by june of twenty seventeen now it was written in the fall of twenty sixteen so that  have there was tremendous school district said at that point in time is that it was a district of origin so when they went to the outside school district they had chosen school district of origin because the school district itself said to them under the circumstances we're seeing this is in the fall  what else are you relying on if anything to say no not almost any more the media fact is that there is no uncertainty in their living arrangement maternal grandmother testified in you know why the act uses three words six adequate regular to describe the circumstances where home were homeless this might apply if that if there's a lack of circumstances in this situation we have it sticks out in regular because they mentioned is that yes and j s parents are not looking anywhere else to reside they're not looking to move out they stay to testify that in twenty fourteen when the district concedes that they were homeless but they have looked at that point in time since it does go up to august thirty one twenty sixteen but it also says in the that there will be locally on the homelessness with respect to g s for the school year post office thirty one point sixteen in the contract for that way but as you're going to notice the contract in paragraph four specifically states that consideration a contract is sufficient only for waivers from the beginning of time through to august thirty one twenty sixteen not following into the home so there's a nice bedroom for everybody everybody's comfortable and they stay there they move in and that's where they register to vote that's where the register their vehicles that's where they live for the last five six seven ten years is it is your position that that's the building up and they are they are always home was because it started within the first month they thought well we'll just stay with grandma temporarily is it is or should it if we think this is temporary to start with that it's forever after you're homeless no you are that's not my position ok so big the school district seems to be making the argument see they are making the argument that well maybe something that was temporary start with ceases to be temporary and  ago that what started out perhaps as a doubling up because of financial hardship might cease to be that are you backtracking on them on their own i don't think i understood that that was by reason of financial hardship my understanding was that it was a family being invited to stay force that so they'd move in because they have to they've got a problem they can't make rent they move in grandma's house they're everywhere after homeless you know everybody's perfectly comfortable nobody has an intent to leave their lives in there because they want to live there but because they moved out of their apartment under some financial duress or stress program after they're homeless that should we give yeah not necessarily  wrong i believe that there's a mechanism set up in the act to make determinations and set up under pennsylvania law to make a determination about whether somebody is homeless or whether somebody has become a resident of another district and in this case the district had those mechanisms available to it in forms of its again respectfully disagree with the district on that position moreover as as the district says in its papers the district declined to speak with mr burroughs even though there was no reason for it to decline to sneak in the suppose when called and heroes recollection answer is that may in fact be a case where somebody had ceased to be homeless because they have achieved a fixed adequate and regular presence whether doubled up in the home of another but in that case is not by reason of financial  right i think that would have to be in that case a legal right to remain your own of individuals in united states who are homeless seventy six percent i believe are homeless and double about it is the primary orders hypothetical where the shared ration of this fixed regular and adequate and you said that there is a legal way to remain up for lost me there well you are there two things one is the stability of the housing because one of the things is an area through which everybody else must pass to access other parts of the home and i think it's worth noting that gets to the primary forms of instability that come with being doubled up in the home of another come with being homeless and doubled up a have no private space they have no place to study there's a great deal of tension in the home as the parents both testified they face the very kinds of stress and uncertainty that we can even to act is meant to address for children in particular because constantine education stability and education is the best war against having that kind of poverty and difficulty echo down through generations this is the core be waived in this way but there is need to be appropriate protections of the right of the child for example under pennsylvania rules of procedure twenty thirty nine a miner's compromise for her to look at whether the parents were waiting the rights of a child  the the guardian the parents we worked out the solution we paid a sum of money to work this out and this was this was the deal with the problem that from their perspective at least just cause just cause the problem in the school and they were this was a way of resolving that disruptive problem and they did what they thought they had to to resolve that problem which included an exchange of value my question to you is we could decide the problem of the drafting of the instrument which you relied heavily on the inclusion of the n t if that inclusion hadn't occurred your position is they possibility there i'd never concede we can be weavers of making a major writes in the way that the district contemplated here but not on the facts here and in particular iran or because there was no effort they could have done that years ago and did not so i'm not saying or out of that this can't happen i'm saying that it cannot happen but not involving her under the can even to act and receiving funds as a result of that that would be not just a violation of district policy but a fall out and i doubt your honour's that the district is enrolling her for no reason but rather that it has enrolled her ok that's it we're so you're saying that the school district declined to participate in the process by which the determination was made because they decided the school district decided reasons good and sufficient to itself i can see is similar doubling up in then the kids are residing with their parents with another person who is there a resident of the school district and that's how i do because i just look at it they are able to legally establish residency and they do that by showing an address could be male it could be driver's licenses it could be voter registration that is perfectly legitimate and legal and we would say that this family is living doubled up i mean that was a multiple occupancy it's the same thing but in the chester upland school passage of time converts one from home was actually you know but you can you can relieve the definition section in section one one four three four a we can't even tell acton if you read it as a whole or not in bits and pieces and with respect to the court below i think the court below looked at only about one circumstance is living doubled up and i think that's a that's a mistake here because the context of the definition is that you have cit numerous living situations they are temporary tents parks hotel rooms and it includes doubling up in that definition you know there by extension making it a temporary situation would you can it's not what we have in this case your school is strick your client has decided that grandma has got has kept them and therefore will always keep them even though your own school district employee came back and said there's not that housing is temporary but there's an imminent threat and it goes on to talk about credible evidence that the owner which we grandma is going to ask them to leave within fourteen days so there's a two week period of time so again saying you read the act all together it makes it clear in my mind that it's intended to be temporary in nature because the entire act is trying to keep students educated who are living in these situations where they are having to move from place to and when it's read with that with the rest of the paragraph indicates a temporary situation right couchsurfing raise multiple occupancy is a place where the child lives with parents and ha lost his job for a very short period of time and resumed employment the family nevertheless decided to move into this into this home and and he continue to remain there there are many many people in this world who have paycheck to know our opinion is reading the act way beyond what it was ever intended by congress i think the intent of congress is to address dire situations where a child is disrupted their life is destructive because of right circumstances and then having to move it and then gone through the grass as what they were in the process when the original incident occurred they were in the process of determining appropriate placement for g s and out of that conversation with their request