briefs might have had a rube goldberg kind of effect in terms of getting there but all the arguments flow to the idea that at the moment the parents had to decide whether to enroll their daughter and see  in the school proposed by the school district they had to decide whether she would be safe there and the word safety is not too strong a term if you look at the history of this case the year prior to two thousand and twelve thirteen and c had missed one hundred five days of school because she was unable to attend due to anxiety and due to what they call a pro dromo psychosis she was as you saw on the record she had auditory hallucinations so if you fast forward to december of two thousand and twelve in january of two thousand and thirteen suddenly the parents are trying to find placement for and see where she would not experience the same form of psychosis and the uncontroverted expert testimony is that she was at risk she was at risk if she were to experience certain sensory triggers so what do they do that the school district during the fall of two thousand and twelve suggested a few schools none of them was appropriate then the parents  try it out and she did and so she spent a week there and had a great time that you do well she did great moments in the record then after the day after her trial the school district's the chair of the going to get a free and appropriate education he has there's i think this court ruled in the case that we didn't know one sided andra check i think it's called if that's right the carter decision  is the sort of this sort of donut hole if you will but the carter decision basically says that the range of placement should be broad enough that it can include a school that doesn't provide what is required of a school doesn't i mean it's not like the school district suddenly just for some arbitrary reason suggested the others they suggest another school and then the question is whether that school provide what would it provide it or public education right yes i mean doesn't have to be that or them all it has to be is that right sure ok so it's not a question of whether maybe brooke is better than the other question is whether the other school would have met her needs right right and what i want to do is kind of put you in the shoes of the parents in january of two thousand and thirteen this is really important they have a daughter who is at risk of becoming fully blown full blown psychotic and so what they i think the i h o was right i know manage your anxiety i think what they referred to was a behavior plan which is a term of art in special education and she did not have traditional behaviors what she had was a psychological condition and there's a huge distinction you're not going to testify about how well he rejected the conclusion that maybe a book was appropriate citing a few incidents that occurred and our argument is you don't look at incidents you look at the totality of the circumstances you say how did maple book do you keep in mind carter the carter decision from the supreme court says it doesn't have to be a free program public education because parents are faced with a situation where they don't have a faith they don't have a free public education so they have to seek placement elsewhere so the parents get a little leeway in fifteen months there are six incidents for a woman who a young woman who has a psychosis that's pretty good that's less than less than one a month and then some of these incidents are pretty minor so on the whole she was able to access her education in a book she she did really well or she worked towards independence she got good grades these are all the things that when you look at the totality of the circumstance you have to say we submit the knickerbockers more than adequate academic as opposed to i mean there's no the school doesn't have an obligation to have raised certain motions ability it's just that she reaches certain education i disagree i think it's a free appropriate public education can extend the parents liked it or not whether that provided a fake it's not about whether they liked it it's about whether it was safe for and see how it's whether whether the proposal provided a fait correct  there's you know a thousand better alternatives out there all they had to propose was a faith or your opposing counsel will educate or elucidate our submission is that the committee and special education itself didn't truly believe the caffein could provide a favor but that's in dispute right i mean you have somebody who said just said he doesn't recall saying it to the mom but i   how could you use them if they had faith by seeking to spread out the senior year for two years if you were so emotionally ready because the see this school year in which she was placed in maple brook placement it was already going to be her second school year second senior year and that was it established in the record that she was completing through two thousand and thirteen fourteen school year as her second school second senior that would have been o remained in the district program and then there was that document in the in the record that indicated that the parents in september of two thousand and thirteen wanted to spread out with a spread out her senior year for another year without first seeing whether or not she could complete the program so they had already pre determined that she's going to be in school again for fourteen fifteen at the district expense in a third senior year essentially  knew this church they knew her emotional state they knew her state of exhilarating well we think it was bad faith just to get reimbursed when they tried for years to work with the school district because it presumes that she would require that third senior year there's nothing in the evidence in the records just that she may or may not need a thirteen year at the time the document that was and evidence suggested that she needed thirteen here is entirely speculative and for the parents to suggest that she need a third senior at taxpayer expense completely a taxpayer expense going to your question before about who pays for it because it's not approved placement i think puts the cart before the horse and that's why we submit that that was bad faith on the part of the make arrangements for a work study program so the parents were aware of that fact that he was doing work that she was until she passed but that is correct and the reason she st was in november of two thousand and twelve because she had to compensate in where and she had required you know additional supports outside the school setting and that's when the c s e had recommended carafate in february of two thousand and thirteen so the faith was studied carefully and we will add to that a work study program as correct and that is in the record she was involved in such a program and that was beneficial to her given the amount of time she actually missed from instruction contrary to what my colleague had stated to you and what stated in their briefs there was significant time missed due to her behavioral issues and her missed she was actually removed as a residential student for two months even though the parents have requested a residential program which is the heart of the case here that they wanted a residential program not necessarily the care from program which is  a district day placement and then she was out of school completely from one week prior to that in january two thousand and fourteen she was missing school at least two times a week because of her who is a nations that was actually the testimony from the maple maple book psychologist and that maybe broken it is correct that they did not have any behavioral interventions or strategies to deal with her losing nations while she was in class  behavioral issues council luda two six meaning who's who list nations the in an ability to remain in class and keep in mind the parents fought for a residential program they didn't dispute the conte ip the goals the probe of the actual program itself what the parents want is a more restrictive setting than what the asteroid believed could be achievable through the i e p they fought for residential placement regardless of what was contained in the  placement that they're seeking that was just a trial period when she was actually in a role in maple brook she the compensated greatly counsel alludes to six minor incidents all those incidents were situations that and it's important to understand the make this clear that the s r o believe were to be more than minor what's being lost here is that this is a review of administrative proceeding where the s r o determined that these incidents among other things as including the lack of actual and actual behavior planned what lately the s r o to conclude that the program is not appropriate the reason i bring this up is because as this court is well aware you have modified the novo review of the a ministry of record which means you can make determinations of law but with regard to education of the terminations you give deference to the administrative agencies determination and  do we give to the district court's determinations with respect to those you don't have to give anyway because the district court is bound to the same to modify to an overview as as you are but as this court set forth about five years ago an r v and major's new york city board of ed whether when there is a dispute between the two ministry of agents is new york being one of the few states that has a two tiered administrative system when there is a dispute and for one with regard to prong to the us or wrote treated these incidents in the second to last page of the decision and devoted an entire page of analysis towards those incidents whether or not those incidents carry any weight is that the educational determination that the server wrote deemed important enough to give weight to those facts that were reviewed by the u s or are simply not reviewed by the i h l in any form whatsoever therefore if you go by your own decision ari when you give deference to the more well reasoned decision the yes or no actually addressed those issues there's simply nothing in the i h o decision that address those issues and and whether the program was appropriate because of those incidents as well as the lack of behavioral interventions additionally as this court ruled in hardison in about three years ago evidence like this is the type of didn't change for years but when they were supposed to place or care for the reason they visited care if it was to see whether she would have been able to handle it whether it would have the sensory triggers both the parents and the school's o psychologist said no she won't be able to handle parents when they have to make the decision whether to place or a care of and why shouldn't they rely on their own instinct and the school's own psychologist who said don't place for the