versus council rock facts in our view the court does not have the side any issues beyond the narrow facts of this case the court does not have to decide larger issues of whether under what circumstances school districts in general must offer an ip school year to address sable student not under the school district was not under an obligation to continue to monitor is that correct your honor the d p wasn't rolled in a private school there is nothing in the record saying that he was disenrolled from the public school dual enrollment can happen there's i know of nothing in the record that where where d p was not no longer in rolled in the private in the public school simply because he had chosen to his parents chosen to put  for a period of time in c l c someone sneaking out of a public school and put in a private school for as long as that child may be and that that private school the public school supposed to keep on developing a program plans that we honor your honor that is what the statute says and that is what the regulations say where does it say that honor in twenty u s c section fourteen twelve a four that provides an individual ised education program or an individual as family services and must be developed reviewed and revised for each child with a disability there's no there is a duty under the statutes i decided including for twenty fourteen twenty u s c fourteen fourteen d to essay that says that a school district such as the one in this case shall have an effect for each child with a disability in the agency's jurisdiction and individualized education program and then there's further duties to continue to to have an annual i e p updates enter and to revise that  the fact that that drake was or d p was involved it was enrolled in the private school in this case does not relieve the district of their obligation i mean that the language is categoric how if a child was out of school with a problem originated in kindergarten and childless in private school for twelve years following that how could the school the public school even know enough about the child in this current needs to develop such your program your honor that is why i keep going back to the unique facts of this case that is definitely not the case here i mean each time now but suppose it was if what you're arguing is well by about the eleventh grade you what you would have no more idea about that child is the then the man in the moon how could you realistically have such a rule your honor can interpret we are not we are not arguing here that district has a duty to monitor children in private schools where they've never think about a program because that the district in this case that the child had been all out of the out of this for several months there was ongoing dialogue between the school district and the parent the parent was sending further information to the school the school is offering to develop i e peace they've argued in their brief as a part of this i'm going dialogue with the parents or say we want you to continue to develop the i e p and the that was certainly the understanding and if i thought i thought they had responded you know i hope they hadn't responded to a number of inquiries other than to say that look we've elected to go to the private school route and that's that they the though the inquiries were in in response to two d p s parents sending updated evaluation reports to the district they wanted to keep the district updated in response during the during the summer i guess a seven the school district said a number you know would like to you know meet with you would like to discuss this further and all they got back was two there were many look communications was one response we decided to go the private school route well but there were further communications after that your honor and from from the mother to the school yes sending and i can say in well the re t letter from the school district on september seventeenth two thousand and eight and then november twenty six i thought and then another on march fourth and i thought yes or are responded to your honor these were these were  sent because the mother sent updated information to the district this is not a situation where the parents said we want nothing to do with you any more that the child's in a private school and we're done there was an ongoing dispute about g p s placement and in relation to that the parents kept sending updated information regarding d p to the school now the district offered to have ip meetings the parents didn't take them up at that time because they were satisfied with where with where d p was but with the certain shows is that contrary to what is in that school districts brief where they say once he was unrolled in a private school they had no duty to to develop update have anything to do with an ip for d p well here we have a letter from september seventeenth two thousand and eight august twenty eighth two thousand and eight and november twenty sixth two thousand and eight a month before the tragic tragedy happened this where the school district is reaching out to the parents and saying let's have ip meetings if they had occasion to do that why are they sending those letters why are they making those offers it's completely contrary to what they're arguing before the court right now no it's well it's it's possible that they were not under a legal obligation to do so but they wanted they did it anyway  year provided your honor the the district still has an obligation to have an i a current ip in place for every disabled child in the district whether they're in a private school or not at the beginning of each at the beginning of each two year and expired mid year and it expired about a month after the tragedies in this case and i want to emphasize are ours that we are again we are not arguing that a school district has a duty to monitor a child and in a private placement  it does have the child find obligations right yes it does and the supplemental education provisions it does have those duties although it didn't appear that either one of those duties are you focusing on with regard to this particular case honor we are we are focusing on the way the district's obligation to have a current appropriate i'm fully p in place for every child with a disability in the district whether they're in a private school or not let me ask a dumb question if they had a i e p on general twenty second and they're saying you know well we haven't heard from you so we're just going to continue what we previously had in place that would appear to be enough but as a practical zero nine practically but directly they would have had to take into account the tragedies of which they knew they had knowledge there was no need to monitor what i knew thought the three psychologists or psychiatrists who testified or those at the hearing said that it would have been he should not have been dislocated from their private surroundings absolutely or in the month immediately after these tragedies absolutely that is correct and so what they  the district needed to do was was put together knew i current i e p to replace their expiring one and that i e ph should have specified in congo in contrast to the previous ip that expired that that pla a new appropriate placement that appropriate placement would have been where he was at that time so what would that if he had done that what would that have given him here what were you thinking i mean other than they meant for the the private i family the right to receive a free appropriate public a education in the private school which is what was appropriate for him it would have given drake's mother full information regarding you know her choices you know  what's the district propose and who paid for the fall of wait and see elsie the parents are right and after after these tragedies that did the mother asked for a revised  i no your honor she's there's nothing in the record indicating that she she directly asked but without it did she ask or does she not hands i don't believe she did arise does that make a difference you are in this circumstance it does not  an appropriate and either implements or new ip in a question here is how the district recognize that because the district had direct knowledge of what had happened to drake he had just district had direct knowledge of condition autism which makes which makes transitions troubled troublesome to begin with but certainly in this case when everything was pulled out of his life of any stability because his parents his warehouse house his home there was nothing left to him but the school for stability it would have been entirely appropriate transition back to the school at that time therefore the school district expiring ip which said drake needs to be educated in the school was therefore inappropriate and they should have realized that or at the very least initiated the reevaluation process i mean if the district had knowledge that for instance a student private school received a traumatic brain injury i don't think there's any there's any question that they would need to initiate a reevaluation process to find out how is that affecting his education how does that affect his the proper placement for that student and i don't think this is any different given the fact that d p had autism the school district was very well acquainted with his history and his issues and they had direct knowledge of what had happened to his house and his family morning good morning your honors grace dionne on behalf of the council rock school district may please the court the panel has hit on many of the arguments that the district is  submitting in response to this appeal good manner mr gehring says that it was your that under the statute and under the regulations maybe under case law as well that you had an obligation after the tragedies occurred to revise the be on your own and so that acar that that is not on your honor the law does not provide for that there is nothing in the i that requires when a student has been unilaterally removed from a public school to continue to monitor or to continue to offer faith absent a parent notifying the district of a request to do so so using an example mr gary mentioned if a student happened to be brain injured that it would put a district on notice let's pretend that a student as many are removed from middle school to go to let's say a parochial school for high school and let's say that that student suffers a brain injury this would suggest that the district is under a requirement to then contact that family and offer special education services to that student who is in a parochial school or another private understood that the parents that put the child in a private facility and these the street didn't have to pay for that but with the universal agreement in zero nine beginning of zero nine that because of the tragedies of december of zero eight he needed to be in a private facility the e p needed to be amended because it's almost inconceivable anyone would have said that he could he should have been dislocated at that time and had it been amended the funding would have been picked up by the district you know the question is what was done by the district once the e p a ran out on january twenty first your honor and to answer that you have to examine what the district knew in january of two thousand and nine the district knew factually that a student's house burned down and that a student's father passed away the district was completely unaware of the opinions of parents expert in january february march up until april first when we got the due process complaint which included a section stating that the private evaluator was making the claim that a transition was not possible and with respect to whether this student had an inability to transition it is not accurate that all  witnesses agreed on that rather dr holmes whose credibility was severely undermined by the hearing officer and accepted as well by the district court he was of the opinion that this student could not transition even fourteen months is but frankly when you're in the midst of litigation with a parent you suffer the possibility that if that hearing officer had found in favor of c l say that would be then dependent placement and in order to guard against the district being on the hook to pay for c l c for all the years going forward the district would have to demonstrate that it continued making offers of faith so that is a little bit of a different situation it's not legally required we could not do that and defend on other bases point that you need to recognize here is that drake all children are unique and different and yes drake is autistic and has severe communication issues however in this in the range of the autistic spectrum drake is not a  child that based upon past involvement this district program for the child the summer of two thousand and seven throughout the school year of the two thought of two thousand and seven two thousand and eight and even the summer of zero eight and recognize that drake as a child that some autistic children get upset if the teacher is not the same that day they can't go from one classroom to another that's not drake drake did not exhibit that and they would not have reason to believe that he would not even at that time had they known again they did not know any of this until april first however even at that point they opined that he would have been able to transfer transfer back and transition back the testimony in this matter of miss crawford who is highly expertise to an autistic supports for her students she is a supervisor special education as well as our school psychologist and the behavior analyst they all opined that based upon his past indicative would be how he dealt in the past and they believe that he even at this time when they learned of this would not have difficulty transitioning back again though the district was never afforded the opportunity to examine the issue because parent never made the our programming had they done so and i would like to just mention had they done so special ed programming she's also a learning consultant so she is very very savvy on these issues and we do have to examine and there are times your honor i agree that when a parent possibly has a language issue deficiency or some other cognitive reason why they can't fully participate in this process she was able and i'm not i'm being i'm not trying to be unsympathetic in any way to drake's mother during this terrible time however she was able to elicit the opinions of dr holmes she had him coming into the home to observe draken home setting as well as the community setting and she developed and had a report which she then submitted it when you look at the record her letters are very lengthy they're very detailed and she communicates at a high level i don't believe that based upon these factors she was in any way crippled or on able to notify the district there's some dispute as to communications between the mother and the school district in the have those communications in front of me and again this is mainly going above and beyond what is required the district receives the private reports and it's not that they are saying that they want to necessarily revise the ip or do anything but if you look at the letter of september seventeenth it says if you are interested in scheduling and i pay to review drake's ip please let us know again the district is solid in what it has offered did you get did you get a response we we did not your honor there was no reply to the september seventeenth letter there was likewise in the record no reply to the nov twenty sixth two thousand and eight letter there was likewise no reply to an email march fourth two thousand and nine and that is if that is substantiated in the record damage control the due process complaint in this case was filed in equal two thousand and three all the communications that are in this record that we have cited for prior to that time they were doing damage control because they've been  offer an ip to drake on march fourth two thousand and nine that was a letter it's at two eighty seven a of the record that was a letter that was sent prior to the due process complaint being filed in this saying  let's have an ip meeting today so the only time there isn't and i e p in places from january twenty second to march third we are there was a letter offering to have an the following school year did not affect this particular school year that as a subject of this litigation to be clear they sent a letter march off to program and it was not responded to your are it might have said we we can provide a free appropriate publication in the least restrictive arm as required by state and federal regulations and district operated autistic support program as required this is in august this is after he had been  control it's just doesn't ring true your honour's they make the point that that makes mother was a special ed teacher that is true but she's also a special ed teacher who just lost her house and she just lost her husband on point in saying that you do not leave each don't leave it to the parents to to start to develop programs placement suggesting this is these are the jobs of professionals at the school district  a school district that knows or should know that a child has an inappropriate i e p or is not receiving more that in a miss educational that it affected must correct the situation back to the point we're talking about if the school district tries to we knew a dialogue that they were in effect there wasn't a full response to some of their inquiries the previous summer and fall but now on march fourth of zero nine they're trying to renew a dialog and you're saying they really did you're not sure when the response response was there may not have been a response they time soon what is a school district to do in that case you're out of that that dialogue had to do very specifically w program placement for the following year school year which is not the subject of this case what the district is to do it and why not a response immediately back saying look we're talking about the the upcoming school year we're willing to meet i'm willing to meet with you over the summer with regard to that but i need you to deal now with the current school year in happen your honor the that ship had sailed and he had been in the in the program for quite a while he was where he was supposed to be at that time this is not a situation where where because of where he was he was being there was some sort of harm happening to him the question was is is the district's i e p which specif that he shouldn't be there to be at the district is that appropriate if he if what you're looking for is an eye e p in early zero nine that says that he needs to be at the l c and therefore will pay for it doesn't something have to be started by the parents in order to do that because you're posing counsellor said the problem was we didn't have any information in january and february and psychologist said they have psychologists that's their entire job is when there are circumstances that happen in a child's education that warrants looking further into the situation but it is their job to propose the evaluation and all i'm saying is if you want them to do their job to do their perform their professional responsibility don't you have to give them the information in order that they can try to do that which you need to fight to meet with them to actually to make a i the that the school board i mean the school district must correct the situation that's exactly what we're asking for here is inappropriate ip specifying that he needs to be educated in the district school was inappropriate as of late december two thousand and two thousand and eight because of what happened to his father what happened his house is there the ip under which he entered the school was expiring the district was going to have no i on the table after january twenty first two thousand and nine when you combine those circumstances especially given that the that the district had been working with the parents in the parents are working with the district in sending them information to try to keep things updated i think the district given what happened to the drinks mother needed had it had a responsibility to step in at this point say and propose a reevaluation at that point  have an ip meeting when it was most needed it was the crucial period in this entire case when when these tragedies happened and it was up to that under mc and the cases to follow it was up to the district to take some steps to rectify the situation and you cannot blame drake's mother who just lost her husband in her house for not for for not making the requests otherwise were it's form over substance your own me you know the question