morning may please the court their green for the school district where we have in this case are multiple agencies that are responsible for helping children and the school districts responsibility is to educate the children where it finds them department of child and family services their responsibilities or else where they are in charge of their chopper texan agency they responsible for the overall well being of the child and issues like children and family services a school district is in the least geishas to consider residential placement i think is a confusion in this case between where a child resides and the educational services so a residential policeman is not a special education and it's not a related service under the c f r thirty four one zero four three two three four three point one zero four it says if residential is necessary so that a special of services for related services can be provided then it has to be provided but residential is not itself  special education service so if you look also second doesn't the regulation provide that i think the district court judge is referring to thirty four c f r section three hundred point one fifteen a private residential program but does that mean well the program is not the services the service so let me give an example or if you look at and this is a page one zero nine one ten of our brief in the appendix no i don't think it's i see course not but it's but they're saying is that so and so children and students would require placement in a private residential in order to maximise the confusion over where the child is residing and what this services are so as an example with respect to a hospital if you have a child with a broken leg in a hospital we find the child at the hospital and we provide services in the hospital we don't get in the middle of should the child go home should the child go to a different hospital here we have a child and the licensed children's institution and the framework says call the school district tell them we have a child here who needs to be educated then if you look at five six one five seven is a critical statute your honor five six one five seven of the education code it's a one hundred ninety one ten of our bill pending x it says once a child is in that location we can serve either through public in a nonpublic school the local education shall conduct local education agency shall conduct an annual evaluation to determine whether the placement is the least restrictive environment so they use those terms differently resi child is residing in the l c i the placement is the nonpublic school and what's happening in this case is there conflating the two and there's a reason why the advocates on the other side that i appreciate they're well intentioned but i think it's misguided they are trying to take the stay put rule and make it a political to d c s ss decision as to where the child should reside because the c f s is not a local education agency so there's no stay put so in this case if you look at their that just because the residential placement has been done by another agency that does not excuse this school from independently making a determination as to whether or not a residential program should be but quired that would be the case if for example let's say the c f s said as they're required to under the statute we plan to discharge student from the l c r because that's their decision the court has directed  s to decide where should this child reside and then they say ok the there's improvement mental health needs family reunification considerations that's all taken care of we plan to release her from at that point we would be at the beginning we would have an ip and it's possible seems unlikely that a consideration was does he need she need residential but what they're trying to do in this case your honor is while the child is already residing in the l c i based on a frame where d c fs decides that have us get in the middle of that just like a d c s should not get in the middle of what we're doing to educate a child we should not get in the middle of where the child is residing don't you have a continuing obligation under that idea even if the child is placed in a residential program by the agency we have an obligation to provide special education related services again back to three hundred point one zero four if the child needs residential to provide for us to provide those services she must be placed in residential but here the child's already in residential she tells you then still have the obligation to provide  educational services yes we did and there's no dispute in fact the dispute in this case was that are a number of issues in due process and we won on all of them so the administrative law judge and the district court basically agree that we have proved we provided the fa so there's no issue in this case of providing faith the only question is this abstract question should we have had a duplicative offer to provide a residential placement and the answer is no because it would cause a lot of problems because the fia g c s has a different man had the ip listed residential placement in the vista facility and asked could have filed a motion to prevent or delay any change of residence to ensure that such a move was educationally appropriate and or made with the least amount of disruption the decision about where net you next where is the next appropriate place for you you're just going to stay here we're not going to yank you out and put you in limbo right from the will ninety nine percent of the time stapler placement has nothing to do where a child is residing and a separate nonpublic school so the nonpublic school is the educational placement the residence is the mental health placement and what they're trying to do is they're saying they agree that student was in the nonpublic school and that would be stay put and that was what they want to do is import that into the process so in other words whereas the there's no jurisdiction under the ideate to tell a mental health child protective agency what to do because their best position to decide what's in the needs of interest a child they want to import that over as an option so that way let's say they didn't want in this case student didn't want to leave the lockdown facility which seems unlikely then the government would have been blocked because of the i i see that they're conflating the residence of the child with the with the services being provided in most states that instances it's ok you may be receiving you're in a special day class and we want to move you to resource class you file for d process you have to stay in the special day class or could be an m p s you're in a nonpublic school receiving services x we want to lower it down to a special big class you follow stays there but what's different here is the residence she's residing in a mental health facility that's what they want to get in the middle of and we shouldn't have anything to do with that and i think that's where the district court got confused in this case she's confusing the residential component with the with the education  her opinion and shows itself well i think it's because it's the fact that they're saying that a residential placement should also be offered even though the child is already in a residence i think the best place to look at it is in five six one five seven your honor if you look in the statute it says it separately distinguishes you have it up to page one hundred ninety one ten of the appendix if you look at the bottom of one of the nine ok and the top one ten so it starts off it says in a in providing services to individuals residing in licensed children's institutions or foster family homes the local educational agency shall first consider services operated by public agencies if those programs are not appropriate special ed related services shall be provided by an n p s ok so that's the promise we either find a local public agency at then you jump down to see it says if evaluation in accordance with federal law to determine whether the placement is the least restrictive environment that is appropriate so that set that's paragraph distinguishes between the residence and the and the placement and that's the distinction in this case if there were if there were no mental health treatment being provided and this was simply just a nonpublic school we wouldn't be here the difference is we have a social welfare agency whose job it is to protect children reunification other health and welfare goals and it's separate and it's not our expertise we don't have the skill to say should student be in a mental health treatment or not for her non educational purposes we only have the expertise educator and as i said in this case i'm going to ask you reserve the remainder if you don't mind in this case there's no dispute that we provided the free poker appropriate public education except for that one issue that they prevailed on below we provided all the services what they're saying is hypothetically we should have made this offer so it would have been the same residential offer and then had they wanted to assert stay put they could have kept students  to here's my understanding b l j found this is a quote student have not met her burden of demonstrating that the los angeles unified had an obligation to our first student or residential placement excerpts of record one forty two in the district court just disagree the district court said the district had an independent obligation to ensure a continuum of alternative placements were available to meet emmaus educational needs and to bigger legal issue and i think that it is a very complicated statutory framework and what we have to keep in mind is there are multiple agencies with different areas of expertise it's not in the best interest of children to get the school district involved in what yeah i think well that's what it seems like i think that they want to they said twenty six and twenty seven of the brief that they want to be able to stay put are in the the vista residential and it's probably a secondary thought like you just mentioned your honor that when that moment for morning your honour's house of welcome on behalf of students i would like to respectfully disagree with my colleague that this is a complicated question i think this is actually a simple straightforward question of what l a u s d is mental health placement we have not taken any issue with the choices that d c s s f made what we're asking is what the idea requires which is that when evaluating what a mess needed was to consider whether or not she needed placement in a residential facility like the like this stuff for educational purposes there's the possibility that if that evaluation took place the answer would be no that it purely was a medical placement and things would proceed as as mr green explained but the position that only us d is taken is that as long as the student was in a facility like this for mental health reasons they did not even need to consider whether or not she needed the exact same placement or similar placement for educational purposes and the problem with that comes as as was just discussed is that because the d c fs placements and the i d e a placements are made for different reasons and under different criteria should best decide that under their own criteria the placement investor is no longer appropriate they can move her without any consideration of whether or not she still needs to remain in the vista facility for educational purposes and because it's not on her ip because it wasn't considered for educational purposes she loses the protection of the stay put the state put regulations and therefore her education is disrupted is and we said this isn't a hypothetical we saw that's exactly what happened d c s asked made a decision without consultation with the ip team she was moved to a facility that was far less restrictive with no consideration of what she needed in terms of transition for educational purposes and her education was disrupted for a several month period  i pay plan that was in place didn't even consider residential placement as part of the educational plan correct the district has taken the position from the beginning from here in that they didn't even need to consider whether or not an educational placement was necessary because she was already in this post they considered and decided it wasn't necessary and then that it would be a situation very densely anyway that's correct although i would argue i would suggest that it's not a map we're not asking for rules simply that the rules that are in place are followed which is the idea itself and that the  all that that the full continuum of educational placements be could be considered that this is not we're not asking for and new new case law in the situation because because the idea is the only law that speaks to what must be included in the night what services must be offered which is the question here and there is no case law and there were no statute that has been cited or that i'm aware of that abrogates that responsibility because the service is being offered from some other from some of the agency or some other source and i think the well if ever first it was the reimbursement cases speak to that under the i d e a if a parent  unhappy with the offer that they failed to meet by school district and chooses to place their child into a private program on their own on their own payments on their out of their own pocket and is that an able to prove that that is the proper place and that the school district failed to offer a faith then the school district has to reimburse the parent for that there is no question of well if there is another person or another agency that's willing to provide these services then the school district is off the hook for resides the school district needs to consider the full spectrum of educational placements and they need to consider whether or not she needs to be in a residential facility in order to access for education whether she's looking at home whether automatically consider the educational requirements and residential if the residence was going to change but because it changed from the same agency to a lesser restrictive environment there is no obligation under that agency i'm sorry no what no obligation to consider residence for the purposes of education sure so the way that the way it played out was because messes i u p d didn't have a residential component the only thing that was required by the ip was that she'd be enrolled in a nonpublic school so when d c fs changed her residence or sought to change her residence and her mental health placement there was nothing that said she needed to stay in this facility for educational reasons so which which is that is the problem which is why the  of the consideration of of the educational placements needs to take place while she's still in the facility and not after d c fs makes makes their decision because have the proper ip been in place what hopefully would have happened is that  fs went to change her mental health placement they would have realized that she had an ip in place that also kept her vista and then hopefully the two groups the two teams that were responsible for for the student and under the different agencies would have worked together and we see in the transcript of the october twenty first right the media that these teams are somewhat in communication would have realized that maybe she needs more time in vista for educational reasons or maybe she's going to be that additional educational supports to make this transition the end any change would have been done appropriately and with consideration for educational needs but because it wasn't on the ip because the ip didn't say that she needs this residential component for educational purposes she could be moved without consideration as long as she was an enrolled in a nonpolitical school which was not adequate to address her at the time very said they said they did and that they did not consider even consider whether or not she needed placement in such a facility we see that there is a history of three or four previous i p s of her educational rights holder the greens implement the ip but refusing to agree that it supplied a free and appropriate public education and at least two of them she asked are indicated that she needed that she believed m s needed a residential placement or asked for an evaluation for residential placement  her own at her own expense m s a obtained an educational related mental health assessment by dr large who reached the same conclusion that while everybody hoped that that the student would eventually be downgraded to a lower level of care at the time she still needed that state that same restrictive therapeutic environment for educational purposes and that report was provided to the school district that was not reviewed a history of student trying to make it clear that they believed that the residential placement needed to be included in the ip and the school districts not considering it and they have taken the position  at every level of this to see that they legally did not need to even consider it they were they were allowed to limit the continuum of placements that were considered simply because she had been placed in in for other mental health reasons by a separate agency and there's any other questions i would just like to just point out the i'm the importance here that the statutory scheme that the states actually scheme that the school district has relied on is is not something that none of these stat s speak to the ultimate question here which is what should be on the i p the only law that that governs what needed to be considered and offered to student in terms of her educational placement is the ip we don't take the position that any of these of these state laws actually conflict we think that if you look at the text of these laws they often assume that an ip is in place and they're simply instructing the different agencies how they need to work together to make sure they're implemented especially for  briefing and then finally the five six one five seven argument has been was also rejected by the district court under this school districts interpretation of five six one five seven which they says that they do not that if a student is in a licensed childrens institution that the statute says the only placements that need to be considered are public school or and or non public school and not anything with a residential component however the district court rejected that argument because that statute doesn't only cover students who are unlicensed children's institutions but children's who are in foster family homes so under the school districts  a student was in a foster family home which has no therapeutic component that five six one five seven would cut off the school district from considering residential placement for educational purposes if it was called for and as the then that's also a substantive error that leads to a denial of fate and here it's certain that the nature of the procedure procedural error is that they failed to consider other educational placements and therefore it's both a procedural and a substantive violation just a few points and rebuttal first of all it's not the goal of the id a to offer something it's the goal to provide the faith and that's what was provided here what they're calling for on the student side here is the duty to make an offer of something we think is not appropriate anyway but even if we accept it that making an offer is not the providing of the state providing the faith is providing the services which were provided in this case what they want is this duplicative off the second issue is what would happen if we had to do this if we had to make a diplomat of law from now the question was asked in my learned colleague here if we were at if we had to make the offer and we didn't offer residential placement they could file for due process now we'd have a whole due process hearing the c f s is saying the child needs to be over here residential now we have an administrative law judge adjudicating a case what's going to happen the c f s is going to intervene in the due process hearing to say no we want the child to be over here  on the other hand if we say yes we should have a student in a residential placement then they want to use that as stay put if the c f s wants to move the child so this is going to create a big mess and it's  school districts to worry about placement and residence of every child that seeks an individual education plan now what's going to happen is children who are placed by d c fs and licensed children's institutions now school districts are going to feel they have to piggyback on that and then one of two things will happen if the school district disagrees with the d c fs placement or even if they agree and they offer an alternative one now you're going to have dueling placement debates and if the district agrees with that they're going to use it to stay put to block the c f s and we're going to have all sorts of parallel that occasion so it is a sky is falling situation that's why we we brought that to this court and i want to make a bit of an important observation about why is it that we're serving the child in this particular l c i well the reason is the code says school districts need to educate children who are residing in an l c i within their jurisdiction why is that the case well because typically school districts educate those in the boundaries of the school district so it's proof that they're looking at the residence of the child when it's the l c i the focus of it is ok we have a child in our territory not change the territory let's move the child to some other location so it's the tail wagging the dog on that i just want to make a final point about judge nelson had a question about discharging of d c s asses obligations once the c f s is done once they say we no longer need to be involved let's the child is placed in the foster home or displaced it with the parents now wherever that child lives let's say the parents live in another school district that school district is going to provide services if it's in our school district then we're going to provide services from the full continuum could be a residential placement but it's going to be based on that residence where the child is then residing but in this case child was residing in an l c i place by the c f s hope that makes sense if there aren't any further questions