we have here the outgrowth of that reliance is also part of what we claim our complaint in compas is the parent doesn't dispute also turn on the way in which  wrote the letter requesting an administrative hearing which was less than clear in the way i wrote the complaint yes indeed that is the allegation of the district court anyway that the case turns on that way i wrote it but if i can tell you your honor the way the complaint is required to be written the elements of a complaint for due process hearing is that the parent must describe the nature of the problem the nature of the problem we said was being misinformed as to her rights the outgrowths of that misinformation even though i believe that the misinformation when relied upon reasonably by parents was a denial faith the outgrow that reliance the second l j who didn't hear the testimony actually cited that the triggering a vent for the deal we in order to develop in our e p for a parent is a parent responding to that faith letter so that we spoke to the triggering event in that letter what was it that you were really complaining about i was complaining about the parent being told that she she relied on that letter i did not find out for us from march to august i found out in august that she relied on that letter so i was complaining that that letter made her fail to respond which cause the denial  whatever rights you have no let's assume and i agree that the march letter because it checks the first box only  now it says if we don't hear from you we're going to assume you don't want to pursue that and she doesn't pick up the phone and call the principal and say anything like she's ok you're deciding to put your child in private school you can get these benefits and if we don't hear from you then we will assume we don't want those either as that r the phone and say yes i'm putting my child in the private school again and but she didn't respond to that either so when does the parent i have an obligation of some poured in this process of talking to the school and clarifying what the problem  a faith unless she agreed ahead of time to go to the public school she could've called but she told she mentioned why she didn't do that excerpt the record ninety nine she said that she wasn't going to pull or kid out of the middle of the school year and place him her into a public school in order to get an offer of faith so if you believe her testimony and there was no credibility determination because the hearing officer didn't hear the testimony  then you would say that was that reasonable in that circumstance not put kid out of private school middle school year by the time school year ended of course her eligibility ended for a fake but she was sent a letter you can have private services maybe speech whatever we have available why don't you call it's irrelevant to this question because the at the denial was caused by the march letter the april letter saying you could have private source a private school she didn't want it she didn't ask for it she didn't pursue it why would she why is that relevant to this question which is a distracted visit with the with regard to the april letter but she did testify what she what her impression was and what the what that impression caused her not to do with regard to the march letter the april letter offering private services is separate and apart it's a confusing element that was brought in as a defense but it doesn't it didn't affect the denial of faith in any way that's like if you want private services for your kid speech services at the private school what does that have to do with a faith well i wonder about too soon or our due process trouble ok your honor i understand what you mean by the interactive process the deal we has the responsibility even a parent didn't respond at all they have the legal responsibility to start and i just try to schedule an i p with even if they didn't receive that they play or they have that individual independent responsibility is that we did recently hear the deal we can't just say oh well we didn't do our part because the parent didn't do something this court ruled induct see on that  nothing they did nothing other than send these letters they said the faith letter telling the parents what their rights were and they were required to hold the ip initiate the process try to schedule if the parent refused to be part of the ip process they were no i don't want to do it i'm not doing it the deal he has a legal responsibility to write that p by themselves by the annual review date and certainly another date that that ip had to be in place any of the school year two thousand twelve two thousand and thirteen that's an independent responsibility for the district court when the district court the first time around read you or your complaint to the administrative complaint requesting a due process hearing the court focused on paragraph five which said student and or parent of the student have been denied their federal rights when the deal we offered to provide student free appropriate public education on the condition that's right that's what the court and then created it was never created by the end you'll do date it was never created by the beginning of school year but the statue of limitations in the state of wife said that if you place your child ok we know my point but the district court the first time around  the ministry to hearing officer should not have made that decision about the fake should have answered the question that you raised in the complaint right because you wanted to read that complaint narrowly that this is the complaint that you have the condition preceding  discourage the parent but why was it fair for her to do that well first of all it was not appealed we didn't appeal that nobody appealed it on the merits i appealed the statute of limitations that prevented an award from my client sixty nine six months later after the appeal and there are any review any statute regulation federal or state that precludes or rule a federal procedure in this kind of case that precludes the district court  doing from doing what she did if you're at thirty four c f r three hundred point five one nine the parties have thirty days borrowing the state statute of limitations to bring an appeal on an issue sure it's a did novo review of the legal question and looking at the jury's us but we didn't put that question in front of her she didn't have subject matter jurisdiction of the first place it wasn't before her if we disagree with you on that if you disagree with that i have three other ways to win this case and like i'm saying the the if a government agency tells you you have a right but only if you want to go to a christian school and you say geez my kids are is quite a complement i know that you know because the oral argument is supposed to be predicated on your brief questions to clarify i understand you but you think you have authority  way forward to hold the ip meeting without the parents and that would be a violation of their rights as well so i'm a little confused as to how you view this particular factual record because the march letter was sent to help and your theory is that the parent believed based on that letter that the offering a faith was conditioned on attendance at public school and so there was no need for her to respond but yet if the school district went ahead and hold the meeting without her then that would also be annihilation of her rights how do you square those two theories very easily what i was doing when i wrote in the alternative is i didn't know if the deal we had held a meeting without informing the parent that they were holding it if you hold a meeting without telling the parent in giving them the opportunity to be part of it that's a denial of faith if you hold the meeting without the parent after you gave them the opportunity this is do over again or shapiro then then you can hold the meeting so i was i was unaware as to whether the ip had been developed secretly without telling the parent so that's why that's what that pleading means so you can hold a meeting and you should all the meeting if the parent refuses to respond to your efforts to involve them but you can't hold a meeting if you didn't try to get the parent to attend the meeting when a district court ruled on a basis that you say was never presented to the court and that is whether the idea was violated by having by not having a night in place prior to start of the relevant school year the make any attempt to raise that issue to the district court to say hey wait a minute this issue was not presented to the court and so therefore i didn't have an opportunity argue it can i come in and brief it and anything like that friendly was i did raise that was that in a motion for reconsideration there was no motion for reconsideration to the district court the district court decided to open that question up and remand the case down i strenuously pointed out she didn't have subject matter jurisdiction i strenuously pointed out that we didn't get to brief it in the remember i mentioned it again in my brief absolutely so i would just explain to your your your best argument as to how the district court for getting that that is you just discussed with the judge when for a minute when you said earlier that your administrative complaint should have been interpreted broadly or liberally i guess where does it come from what's with the argument  that the requirements the drafting of a complaint in this area of the law which says only requires a description of the nature of the problem ok so when you describe the problem you go to a resolution session you're supposed to talk about it what was the problem what happened as a result of that this was the problem this was a triggering event and as a result of this the parent was dissuaded from calling the dio we because she was told she didn't have certain rights that she had a second problem that's  start the process of scheduling it i even if a parent didn't respond to that letter if you prevail here what's what's to happen on remand i would hope that we have a sufficient record that it wouldn't necessarily be required to go to we need the reimbursement for that period of time that that the child remained in the private school that's all we're looking for and if the what would the district court have to do to make that determination whether or not reimbursement is proper the district court would remand it down to the minister of law judge to determine whether the private school provided this child with an education that was specially designed to meet her unique ne and that is initially the matter of the federal district courts remain an order and whether it was proper for her to review and decide the issue about the due process administrative complaint and whether this started the lack of an ip which was the crux of the decision by the first administrative hearings officer i believe the record does fate letter being conditioned on attendance in a public school and contrary to arguments by opponents counsel fundamentally if we start with the statutory frame of framework for the means which is and that's an issue is a case back in one thousand nine hundred six the county of san diego case and then more recently after the two thousand and six idea amendments this court again adopted that same reasoning in the lake washington problematic that that was not an issue that anybody chose to appeal was that properly presented to the district court for ruling yes or because fundamentally this course where jurisdiction it is the court's responsibility and that's what judge well we did to ensure that it has proper subject matter jurisdiction and proper said thirteen thirty one that had jurisdiction over this case the question is is the issue that she's remanded back on had really not been raised by anybody she raised an honor oh yes where did she get this already to do that because i believe fundamentally because she has inherent power because she has a proceeding before her that requires  say i think this is the issue we need to decide well you know i come from usually let the parties raise the issues frame the case and the court to sunny and i have been at other proceedings where in federal court and i was more recently in a proceeding before this not this panel but one circuit another matter where you know we would want to be aware that where doing things on the record and on the record your honor i believe fundamentally the federal district court starts with a review of the complaint that started this whole process which is the administrat can i get you to address because it's sort of tied up in this whole discussion as i understand the parents councils argument he is condition on the public school is the notion that regardless of whether the parent responded or not on the march or april letter they had a duty to go ahead with the process and that necessarily would have interest initiated the interactive dialogue that's contemplated what's your do you know responding to know you and i am not aware of any authority that would allow the department to proceed in that matter without being subject to faith claims let me respond happens if you get if you give notice to the parenting and  we're going to do you know hold faith and parent refuse never respond you never hear from the pain that the kids in school you know aren't you still required to do and that's your honor i mean yes those are good questions and those are the type of questions i would expect would come up during the proceeding an administrative hearing if the claim was besides this claim specific claim which was the offer of it being conditioned on attendance in a public school if the claim was also that defense by the da gee that was response for the mystery hearing all we have is what she had to proceed with in the case which is the complaint premised on one claim which is before the court today that one claim is was an offer of a condition on attendance a public school you have the administrative officer that heard this and contrary to the are against my opponent's counsel there are no credibility issues regarding the testimony had no opportunity then to respond to those types of claims with defenses i don't know what that deputy would have done all we know is what she did do with the claim asserted before her the march latter is that not going to be a new face no an attempt to schedule a new phase we're talking about hypotheticals and i may just speak i pathetically it depends on the circumstances the school could have contacted the parent with further letters i don't know what they did because that you're talking about the first administration decision yes and that's why i believe there is the area on it is like why was that why was that ere for him to construe paragraph five in the way that he did because unlike civil complaints which are filed in federal district court which are broadly interpreted you have the statutory prescription under fourteen fifteen s three b which limits the administration to the very issues raised by the family why wouldn't that lack of notice is what led to the department not present in defense on these matters your honor the only issue raised was this matter of the condition attending public school and that was the defense theories those of the witnesses that testified now if there are matters such as what you're claiming now as a hypothetical those are raised claiming it's trying you know we're having a dialogue i'm sorry what point is if those matters are raise beyond subsequent argument by counsel for the federal district court and raise it in a straight level that gave the department sufficient notice that these are claims are going to be asserted i can gather witnesses to refute these claims then we have a different case today but that's not the record before this today the record before this court today is a singular issue on whether the offer if it was conditioned on attendance at a public school and i believe the record supports that mr decisions officer the second one finding that there was no condition and that was affirmed by the federal district judge and we can play hypotheticals for it for every honor but my point is because those issues are not race unless the court is going to subsume law and then you know we're all on notice at this point moving forward but the point is there was no established federal law for idea cases to saying that within this singular complaint there are myriad of potential fate claims that you the department are responsible for cases of talk about the staleness of i p s for instance there are cases i talk about whether an expired ip that carries over for several months before the annual ip is then developed is that a denial faith and that's factually based in federal courts of ponder that issue and decided based on the facts we don't have that type of facts or because the department was not allowed the opportunity to respond to that type of claim all we have is what was asserted and what we do without the due process that the part was intended to which is notification of the specific claims being asserted we were denied that type of opportunity and so i don't believe there's a basis of reversing the federal district court based on this type of record and i think this go back to th i says you're entitled to a faith services but it doesn't say it's time for a new e p and then down the very bottom it says you know i hear from you by march thirty one twenty eleven and there are several dots with a paragraph with lines and one line reads a really evaluation will not be conducted what was the difference between a revaluat well believe the record supports that there were some mistakes in that letter and that was justified to by the district educational specialist you know the program in place there revolve process anything in the record that shows that they were notified it's time for the new i p for the next academic year yes generally in the sense that the march sixth twenty eleven the parents should have been on well the parent was on the list because she has a copy ip that's not an issue she has a copy of that ip which is expiring of may twenty alive and so she knows that the is expiring in may two thousand and eleven she's getting a letter from the department saying oh by the way you know here's the offer faith then the real question is so are not going to the real question then is the question that was remanded back was a condition on this student attending public school and the answer is come back resoundingly no i mean hypothetically i'm only asking this hypothetically if we were to reverse the just record on this court to make that type a determination it would have to go back to the federal district court i believe the federal district court would then have to remind it down to the ministry for sitting because the admin process has to still proceed on that issue and the issue there before the  ministry of logic is if it's if you reverse and the question is matter of remedies ok then the question revenue is not as simple as mr peck would lead you to believe i believe there's sufficient federal and one circuit case law on the matter reimbursement that refers to there are myriad factors in the area of reimbursement one of which is parent actions there's an equitable a public school i believe so you are having said that you know that's not part of the record i just i know it is but i'm trying to ask your question big u s border is yes i believe  that has been changed but the point is when this was remanded back to the administrative proceeding to determine the condition issue the administrative officer that did make this decision cited i should say reincorporated the findings of fact from the part ministry decision and added additional findings of fact not of those findings of fact or predicated on credibility issues and in fact to this day mr peck is not challenge the findings of fact that support the administrative decision that there was no condition i'm talking about findings of fact fifteen through seventeen where the first administrative officer stated it as a funny effect not just reciting all the testimonies provided but stating as findings of fact by her that she gave credence and she said that this was the purpose of these letters ok and she didn't say she found the testimony not credible she found it as funny a fact that there were reasons for these letters and she cited that in those findings of fact i don't want to believe that point your honor you have the record before you but those findings of fact have never been challenged to this day thank you very much thank you counsel understood that or not we didn't actually have that question to them she testified as to what her understanding of the letter was that in order to get an i v should have to bring her kid back to school now i'm what i'm saying here is it's the intent it's the effect on the parents that the letter has that's the issue here not the intent the undisclosed intent of the d o a in sending it or what they would have done had she contacted them it's the effect it has on the parent that needs to be assessed was it reasonable for her to believe that and her and them telling her that and affecting that her belief in that way was that a denial of faith if we forget about the issues of you know under the statute the actual statute that tells you what you have to do to write a complaint it says you have to describe the problem it doesn't say you have to put in causes of action or anything else this was the initiating issue that's what we we would normally start to gather information for the ip and schedule the i v they didn't do it this is what the hearings officer said cause them not to do their job because they were not triggered by the parent responding to the letter so it does all come back to the letter your honor the credibility i said that the hearing officer didn't rule on the credibility i wasn't this disparaging anybody's credibility or the testimony of anybody i never said citation as to the remedy portion of it was remanded that's in my opening brief to this court it's the standard is that the child program was tailored to meet her unique needs now certainly they can raise defenses like well the parent didn't cooperate the parent should have told her lawyer and figured out with this letter you know if this letter was legitimate or not they could make that claim all they