educational evaluation at public expense unless they disagree with the district of initial evaluation or re evaluation of the student the trouble case supports the district's contention that in this case parents e is conditioned on an actual disagreement with an evaluation that the school district has been back to that's this right the hands on the parents this agreement with an existing evaluation is obtained by the district with the parents in it it had agreed to find the visual processing i e and other i e actually even though it didn't have an obligation to do so but just because the district agreed to find that i e e e it was not and th obligated to file for due process the district chose to file for due process because the parties had reached impasse regarding that parents chose an assessor and whether that particular assessor met the criteria it sought to resolve this this issue by informally trying to sort it all with the with the parents or when he couldn't file her off that and were just because the district agreed to funding doesn't necessarily mean it was then obligated to file an i e in additional processing and the underlying administrative hearing and that the district was airport precluded from raising that argument on appeal however the decision in trouble lend support to the contrary and that the district would information related to this student i don't think that i think that in the record on the invoice that doctor has stuff he had submitted with regard to the evaluation  that the cost of his i e e e would be what it was and i think what it stated in the on the invoice is that because of the student's disability he was able to administer certain assessments which would then resulted in a lower cost but without him having done the assessments that we would not have known that until that he was in the process are in the midst of conducting the assessments of the student record indicated parents were provided that information provided the information the district court of the district did not provide in fact didn't conceded that in his briefs indicating that parents knew stephanie's cost and the district criteria and that law the district court nonetheless determined the district should have specified you not of differential to parent but that information was irrelevant to whether or not there are any unique circumstances but basically whether students had any complex medical health educational or psychological needs that would justify funding and assessor would charge one hundred and fifty percent more than the district costs out and i'm making the determination that the district with somehow obligated to inform parents of the difference between doctor stephens rate and the district costs kept the district reach a decision on an issue that was never addressed during the due process hearing and erred when it found that the district violated the i d f by failing to comply with the somebody indicates a medical doctor there is another problem is clinical psychologist says this child has autism that is separate and apart from a triad in the parent brings ian and i each of the district requesting an evaluation in that area and i make sense man i understand the practicalities that you're trying to raise but the reality is our job is to build europe the law says and figure out what it actually requires and if the law doesn't align law that says if you've just conducted to try and somebody the medical doctor says oh my goodness you have an issue in this area this child must have autism but that's delayed that is put off agency rulings that if a district has failed to do something that should have been assessed that parent in be entitled to and i eat and that's reasonable it's a child who has autism should be assessed in speech and language that is something that goes along we find many times the school districts overlook it and the parents is lucky just to get five or in california where we have a two year statute of limitations the parent doesn't  or an attorney was involved said it's not true i work with him he's done assessments and contacted doctor stephanie after having repeatedly asked the district give us the information what is your cost at the gap was not clear as noted by the district court the district school district didn't have a list of items that were a vision therapy it had visual  by the district you have to make a confidential which is not what resolutions are there to greet work with what the district what it and said oh learned ok fine and although we're not talking about confidential but when i was hired immediately went to charges were until december th of two thousand and seventeen and they tried and there was good faith and then there was a lot of communication back and forth the district and this is probably going to come up in the the due process hearing  and then we had some disagreements over fees but the parents in and they worked very reasonably they communicated lots of communication or begging for information from the district which find the district had no written duty to give this information but the district should have if they were negotiating a price which they claim was their reason for the delay they should have said oh doctor stephens this much and here is our actual written policy which they didn't and the additives was clear that the parent had worked or had some information from doctor stephy didn't know what the district police district believe it was almost twice as much so that's what's that's what's in the record trouble would cut off parents from assessments in areas that had not been done in trying to help and that's a very very big concern  don't know how to get around that because that would just delay services and if we're looking at requiring comprehensive assessment or for students only comprehensive and not these areas such as an f d a we've got a number of the that the parents were backed into a corner in this matter that they tried to communicate their either glee with the district in tried to work with them and did not did not get cooperation or information and the district not been heard the evidence and the back and forth regarding the justification has not yet been determined by the district court so any determination as to the due process hearing and what went on there has not yet been to the courts be mature and cutting off of ninety percent this is a matter i think should probably be returned the court for further determination in why i should be returned to the court if the court already decided what amount should be awarded because the court indicated a ninety percent reduction or no reason stated a court is required to and if it's doing more than the ten percent haircut to indicate what what the attorney has done directly there were littering generalities as to the district attorney non attorney were or clerical work or no identification of those things and that's very clearly required  is this defeats the purpose of id if somebody has done something incorrectly that's that fear again where the attorney and in the district court there was nothing that the district court found that that i had done agreed to fund the visual processing i e almost immediately and then when parents chose an assessor who did not meet the criteria provided the parents of multiple opportunities to provide any unique circumstances that would justify an exception for the policy parents chosen assessor and parents advocate directed the district to file for due process at which point the district conservatively file for due process and hope to resolve the parties in power in the record support that he didn't relies on in this case is more like right and where in that case the parties continue to discuss the provision of the i need through various or on in the st indication of impasse did not occur until the advocate directed the district to file for due process two and i just like quickly would like to address that students are humans regarding attorneys fees with regard to attorneys fees students not entitled to attorneys fees because he was not the prevailing party under the remedy students out in this case was funding for doctors that at the outset the district agree to fund that i almost immediately while the parties were in disagreement regarding whether parents chose it as sas or met th this was a simple isolated act act this is not a remedy that student requested didn't do not a team prevailing party sas and therefore should not have been awarded any and notably student does not reverse it counsel anything else on the attorney's fees was what led the yes your honor we did not prevail at the due process hearing although we  had responded to every single offer in trying to negotiate and that's something that needs to be addressed by the district court we went to be the district court district court reviewing the record made a finding and we did prevail in fact prior to the hearing i had set out a letter indicating an offer we would settle we continued to send out offers attempted to resolve the council what was the or that will change what is being done a policy well there has to be a change in the relationship between the parties and there was what was the change in that letter what did the district ha the magic number in this case it took eighty four dollars days for them to even begin to pay so there was a great reluctance and dragging heels of what we thought the ultimate effect that they ultimately paid will tell you and when we have ultimately received months later the payment that we have sought in the st matter we got the vindication from the district court and we also received an order that the staff be told  reminded of the procedures that's the student is still a student in the district the student has request or he was at the time that we got that and the student has needs for further this is a very important thing because the parents try very hard to where it is to the district was not collaborative the district would not work with the parent and simply say ok i'm as a parents agree to pay everything else over a one thousand from the