normally it please the court very green for the school district we submit that the district court misconstrued the statutory framework under the strict construction has a she graduated now she's not actually she was three units short of graduating and she stopped attending out west mark for some reason ok so she's she stopped attending that's my understanding after she was going might not want the dispute about money at this point you mean that no definitely not in fact this case obviously is costing a lot more to the taxpayer than the dollar amount in dispute it's a very important case because many students come from a non public school to another school district that's able to implement the services without providing all public school placement and there's an important issue about whether or not the school receiving school district must place their child in the public school it's important for two reasons one because a congress has preference for mainstreaming as opposed to placing children in isolation which was your that's not really the issue the underlying issue here it was the question  time with the general population in conformity with that then existing i won't judge wilson says is that we couldn't that he said it appears that the district could not fully implemented because we didn't have a if you can't do it precisely you don't have to pay for the same vendors you don't have to recreate the program in fashion of course with unlimited money you could do anything so they couldn't  terms of you know applying johnson the shot five sixty five what does it mean when we say implemented to the extent possible within existing resources does that mean if you can't manage it you have to pay for the m p s or does that mean implemented to the exten able to and if you can't implement some element that's ok that's one that's the legal question it's a very critical importance but you're you're in there with a geisha no you're a school district has indicated that you placed i don't remember the number but there are many many many people at your place in private educational institutions in art of provide faith that correct i would say not many many compared to the thousands or more that we have in special education there maybe thirty or thirty five t reality is you're school district does provide education ah campus with non profit certified private schools right or slots for a number of people yes so that was a possibility and one question whether you could afford it or a question is whether on the interim i e p t that glendale had agreed upon with the terminated family whether you complied on an initial basis and then after the thirty days whether you provided a fake was well we can get to that but i what i want to find out is i want to i want to work backwards because it seems to me from the record that i've seen that the school district agreed that in the school year two thousand and four to two thousand and five two agreed to do the same thing with respect to that year right now because what we did is we in two thousand and three we post an ip that said hey you know we'll show you why we can asia and will offer transition services and cetera and when the hearing officer in that agreed once you get past i think it's july third two thousand and two pretty much the school district either because of whatever legal process or deciding that that was the appropriate place for her to be the stay put location did not really contest her being there and agreed to pay and they paid as a for state purposes we've paid it as of two thousand and two and then after the second term any decision we didn't do another ip right we've never accepted that part district is unable to provide an appropriate placement and if i could say i only have a little bit of time if i can address the legal issues i realize that there is this question of why is the school district you know picking on this point here but this isn't really what's going on here i mean hard as award winning special ed programs there's two things one is there is one that's supposed to place children in one public schools unless we are unable to provide a private school district there's nothing oh it's a private school it's got some unique component to it in fact in this case there's absent no evidence in the record whatsoever of anything that west forecast the heart doesn't have nothing and you can't just say oh it's a have peace in a special school and there's just nothing in the record at all on that and that's what let's assume for a moment that the terminators were completely unrealistic and hi handed and perhaps even fraudulent from time to time your school district got capable counsel why didn't the school district comply with the law produced the i e p required within th days why did it let it just hang in there until july of two thousand and two why didn't the school district keep a log like the statute provides where you're supposed to indicate when you contacted the parent or the attorney and build your record and then they could if they don't then you could do your own naeyc pete and then the record indicates that you they would have had the right to have a due process hearing a complaint from you didn't do that counsel well we're not ok the answer is i think there were record is there about the log in terms of there's actual e mail correspondence and letters the evidence there is no i didn't you did not finalize the ip the law says you must do that right parent they sue you and say you went ahead and deprive me of my rights if you document and don't go ahead then you get this kind of the situation where they come back and blame me for not doing it and so you know this is the government we're trying to implement the law the best w is that you cannot not take the interim placement and then expect to have we argued this throughout the entire case and i think it's a lot that you cannot not accept the interim placement and then blame the school district for not holding i think because what's supposed to be reviewed  courts have consistently interpreted this to mean the placement the student with actually meant the function placement at the time the reason for this is that it's an automatic injunction is likely that the automatics daily are ok let me put it put somewhat differently i understand the legal stuff but i don't understand how it plays out in this case if i understand your argument it's basically that somehow you're better off if the judge had found  put instead of an interim placement as being sort of functionally equivalent is the best way i can put what i think he did just whatever functionally equivalent why are you better off one route than the other we're better off because gets all into the equitable reimbursement for a private placement which is under the burlington doctrine so we're going to be reimbursed for private placement that's where the equities come in to claim where you can get a reduction but if it's a sta reduced based upon what i'm going to call misconduct of the parent or the parent's attorney also in section fourteen fifteen twenty u s c fourteen fifteen i'm looking at subsection f about reduction in the amount of attorney fees except as provided in some paragraph g whenever the court finds that the parent or the parent's attorney during the course of the action of proceeding on a reasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy then it can be reduced that the the c f i regulation i cited in the statute in this case i'd be very interested in your take on this i'm very troubled by the conduct of the parent in this case and to some degree the attorney not you but enough in the earlier proceeding there's no question that protracted things that made it more difficult whether they were legally right or not they made it very difficult how do you interpret or construed the law in terms of the ability of this court to in effect sanction if you will miss this term any further contact  without affecting the child per say well your honor this tension was applied it was quite in the hearing office that's the half year that's right and the reason for that your honor is that in fact in february and the record would i think would be an abuse of discretion standard it's an equitable determination he agreed with the equitable determination it was an exercise of equity and basically what it was is well ok you don't wait for from october until february but in february change that if you're if you're right then what is the actual practical consequences in terms of first month for each of the periods that are involved or is it go all the way the second question is to what extent if any at all is our mandate and the prior appeal implicated by your argument because and at first he interpreted it as saying look you know the only real issue here is was it possible for them to keep it west mark within their existing resources and it was very clear that it was there was testimony mr lieberman who was the director of special education testified absolutely if we reason why parts just simply couldn't do it that record was not developed at the time of the first hearing that record one is developed at the time after the remit and as part of the due process case because possible was also  issue in respect to the interim placement so we believe that the remainder can reasonably be registered look was it possible to implement the state but it wasn't possible to implement the state and sometimes it doesn't happen sometimes the schools  there was some discussion before about age that dropping out in effect is that corrected she is no longer in school well asia in fact is no longer at west mark nothing by the way that happens here will have any impact on that i understand that i just want to understand the context she ty to provide her with special education services will continue probably until age twenty two ok speaking of booker's how can how can you catch on the  judge trevor scarpa issued his decision in july two thousand and two he said they did not make a permanent placement offer therefore the private placement was appropriate because of that holding under the didn't have been there still long now she was too timid to move what she said and educationally the needs of this child are so intense that they cannot mean that in a special day class special day classes are larger they don't have the same kind of one on one problems she's a very pretty young girl she wanted to have friends she tried to make friends when they saw that she was going to this special day class it's our calling her dummy and making fun of her and she took it very hard to combination of her teachers her teachers from west mark the school administrator the parents agreed at that point you know you're right we've been fighting this battle and we're wrong and she needs to be placed at west mark when they do that i sit down for now you have anything else ok well chemistry thank you briefly just three areas i wanted to cover first of all with respect to the comments that you know we did nothing after february of two thousand and two when mr weiner finally indicated they'd be prepared to talk about an i p i think the record is to the contrary and i want to just point the court to it e r one one seventy one two one seventy two and one eighty eight to two ten as well as your opening brief which lays it out at seventy one to seventy eight second thing i want to address briefly is the stay put argument the questions from the court initially the first question is for mr anthony essentially there are two cases the first case was completely unnecessary the injunction case the state court case what they wanted to establish and actually says soon if you are in a nonpublic school and you come into a new district itself facto the school district must pay for that nonpublic school that's the point and we maintain and i think judge wilson at least that's what across the feeling that there isn't any ipso facto right like that to have stay put in an f p s just because you cannot come in from and be asked if the school district is implementing t regardless of what we have done right there with the facts of this case so if if if she did not get what the law required then she had a right to remain where she was cracked knew she had a right to challenge it and under burlington colleague to get into the merits of that case talking with his needs or because we didn't get to the merits in that case i realize on the movements that that's a legitimate argument to talk about what his needs were five years earlier when she was pulled what happened five years ago recording the record as that large and as of september of zero two we think that the hearing officer was very clear that he did not order prospective placement he ordered simply placement for the summer and we think there are factual issues that need to be addressed  determination school district didn't offer faith the parents had a private placement that concert and the hearing officer agreed then that constitutes a new agreed upon placement for purposes of stay put period end of story there's no and yes what are prospect