miss white lover the mute button is that your lower left or your yes your honor ok you can go ahead in and view all mr repton proceeds but i just want to make sure you were all ready and set to go so hearing and then we went to the district court and now we're of course before the th circuit the major issue in this case is the private placement of this child  notice must be given ten days prior in order to be able to get reimbursement for tuition that's ten days prior to go to the withdrawal and the reason for that is the district is if somebody is going to withdraw and go to private school so that's permissive the way it's written in statute it's not mandatory it's like i think it says may the may reimburse you but it also it's not necessary mean that it's required to re existence when she went through was consented to by the parents and has never been challenged there's no basis for saying that the i did not provide for an appropriate public intervention it was not there is no from the letters that the parents were still interested in in a public school placement ok now and that they were requesting that the school district to require the school district in which she's a resident of which the student was a resident to convene for a new i p and to talk about this with the  parents separate and aside from their request it seems like i used to happen every year so i guess i'm just trying to figure out why wasn't the letter from the parents to the school district sufficient  to put the school district on notice and to provide dated and at least meet with the parents of the problem was what's really misstated in district court decision and the decision on the  that says that if they are clear that they no longer and tend to go back to the school they may provide some relief for the school district but where in the record can you point me to work or it's clear that where the parents are clear because it of the mother i think it's very clear when she says her daughter is very happy where she is and she has no intention she's not she never stated in the record that she had any intention of returning to the school sure her testimony i don't have the whole record great here but it be me sandra lewis testimony where she says that her daughter is very happy where she lives but all of these i d p s we have district of location gets a grid from fizzing district of presidents to the christian school was not in the bellflower school district but it was in the district of location which was did what's called an s p but they also had obligations to continue to do do i because of the agreements the district had and had they had agreements they want to go back to then they need to go i want to get an i p that is they need to deal with the district location which was norwalk lamang and that's that's our position but still it goes on the reimbursement issue your honor it still goes back to the issue that there was no ten day notice for the district to correct whatever was happening and there was the actual i p one thousand three hundred and fourteen i mean that was consented to by the parents was indicate that the residents of the school district is obligated still even if the child is in another school enroll in the other private school is still obligated to provide fically you know stated in j w vs fresno unified school district that even in situations where a parent has sent a letter that the student would be placed in a private school in that case pointing to was from an evaluation i think that occurred in two thousand and twelve and so i'm just trying to figure out with those obligations and the parents of repeated letters and the information we got from the parent not from the attorney and from the parents she had no intention of returning her child to the district and that's what i've argued before and i still i mean i would have the administrative hearing tell what was what was going on the mother was going to run obviously you're not a witness but so if we you know by reading the record that's not clear to us you know it's d clear but it sounds like it is to you what's your best argument if that that it's incumbent on the district or for the person resides are you saying that that's incorrect reading of the regulation is the regulation invalid for some reason because if it's just we're just reading is correct then i don't really understand what your response is to that question well my response is and it's it's it's probably explained a lot better in the brief than i can explain or right here but the district location which was norwalk pursuant to the ed the regulations cited there in in in our brief clearly district of location has an obligation to stupid to do and i p unless the does unless the parent makes it clear they j or the district court dealt with the fact that the i was valid and what's your best for that the best best authority is the only the evidence that we have that there was order for you to get reimbursement for private school not only do you have to give the ten day notice but you also need to have a history i'm sorry where i've seen it's never challenged when it's clear from the letters  parents were not happy with you know the oh oh with the ip that they have and wanted to and they were trying to resolve they pulled her out of there i think there was some  discussion about the speech there the therapy that was going on i don't know if you recall that security issue that was raised and then when they went to norm rock there was also some issues and so then they came back and sent the letters to bellflower say wanting to see what else could be offered so i'm not quite sure when you say there was never a challenge when there were repeated letters from the parents trying to figure out if there is a you know to convene and i don't know if they need much more than that and i'm trying to figure out what authority you point to that says they would require more because i i had to stand which your argument is that i'm just was not there the consent was granted in like july of fourteen she withdrew september th before chain a notice to the district which should have been the prior ten day notice on april twenty three that's when they were invoked their consent and consent and needs but revoked prior to withdrawals the district impressed the problem but in two thousand and fifteen at least at least one of the letters  may have been i don't know it was the st one that the mother sent a letter to the school district explaining that child was removed from the school district because of concerns for kail safety and because she was not making academic progress and she's it's she indicates that she's still in the mother indicates she still interested in a public school placement for kal and request that school and the response from the school district to every i think every one of these type of requests was that they will talk to her unless she reads in roles basically that she will not be in a meeting until she  and i'm trying to figure out what is the authority to support that the authority has a degree method that has the statutes that are cited in the brief that the district of location responsible for that unless it's clear and it still wasn't clear because you have those letters and most are obviously problems for the district but the letters don't back up what the mother was same but i really got  are trying to figure out i understand that the district of where she's going to school may have obligations that well but i've not seen anything that says that relieves the district of residence and so that's why i it does women the evidence is that the parent has no intention of returning to this i think i understood what was clear some need for and hopefully it's clear in the administrative record the mother had no intention of doing that issue that i was interested in what way he was the hardest school there are not of well there are no number one there's there's no credential teachers there's no special education services there's no objective criteria for students to present levels and students cannot get enough credit to diplomacy from school and school is also bible based where oh god and in the bible are interweaved into every subject and it's and finally it's there's no socialization some of the classes she was in i think it was eight and there was only she was the only child in that in the cult and the grade level she knew of any authority horror or exclusion if there's bible education within the curriculum well that the bible would have if you have to what you have to show is that there is this new secular neutral of ideological and in order to reimburse tuition for a school such as new harvest and none of those cases are true the principal at the school testified and said everything i mean everything is interweaved into god's word including science not appropriate number one no credential teachers to begin with so that's that's why it's not inappropriate it doesn't need to requirements for the service of a child in special education especially a child and has  dash seven the bellflower unified school district has not prevailed on each and every step of this process the california department of education instructed directed bethen is is arguing that because they never intended to go back that that is sufficient to relieve them of their obligation to reimburse what's your response verbal it but she does not completely understand english and requires an interpreter in the very st day of hearing our administrative law judge in this without the know it's called us into the room and said i don't think she's understanding it was clear at that point she wasn't understanding some of this even though i had worked with her i asked her a question give you what if you could get services i believe i asked her something like if you can you wan fake from bellflower and she didn't understand i said if you can get the services you need and not have to face i don't like education and yet that from val flower and she finally got it and mr bobbitt objected and the judge said i'm going to allow it  there's been a lot of problem with the translation and there had me continue and continued then to ask for paid the parents said it and this the legal so fortunate that it's the even if a parent does not express interest even if a parent says and i don't think so the district has a duty to make an offer and that's the target range the district hasn't cleared yet so the other school i had no state licensing and he had some services he had some education and it was found to be appropriate even though it did not provide a full recount even though it did not have special education even though california high school diploma the standard is whether or not if it's fate he says obviously it's not free and it's not public it's standard for determining whether it may be reimbursed when a district is found to have failed provide a is whether it's appropriate and in this case cathy garcia the principal and the records at mit and hearing established that can yell was making progress that she was getting services in an appropriate does not require that they be credential appropriate does not require that there be a special education program appropriate does not require anything more and looking to see if i have any oh i do want to mention i believe it's very very important the regulations regarding district obligation and the state code you have a district  faith they can bring the student in and discuss maybe speech and language services you need some tutoring they do not have a duty to offer faith so there was no local educational agenc i think in this matter i think it's very simple i don't think the parents ever backed down from their request whether or not they agreed that the district offered something appropriate  see no offer of faith in the the parents were between a rock and a hard place they did whatever they could to get the district respond and give them what they needed for their daughter under i t non religious items and whether or not a government they pay we have never sought any payment or religious classes at all there is in five a class that was provided or open to k l at the school i think i have no other points to argue and if unless somebody has a question heads order to hold it i see we did exactly that and but then there was nothing that followed up except the district continually told the parents that if you rolled a student that they would withdrawn into like seven months later when they should have been given notice a district court district to have to pay for tuition when they didn't get a chance to correct the issue in the major issue was an alleged bullying issue not offer of we've continued with an offer of faith but the issue about his ms white leather brings up how the judge in the middle of ms lewis testimony had questions about whether she understood the english questions  this happened on direct women as white leather was asking those questions but on cross it was very clear to me that she kept saying she's very happy to harvest and she's going to stay there and that's that was the impression am the language that she was using after they brought in a new interpreter and i don't think it was as norwalk i don't think there's anything in the record that said the loo is ever asked a walk for an assessment i don't think that ever happened they did you and i as phoebe but i don't think there was a request for an assessment and i don't remember anything as being a problem but the district of fairness to the district when you in your move a child from the just right and don't give the ten days notice to is dealing with a special education child if it really violates the fairness of the district i mean if the issue was bullying and that's what the primary issue and that's the impression i got i think she could have been moved to another school there's a lot of things the district of and so i have no knowledge you have question thank you thank you thank you both very much