the lower court's decision should be reversed in this case first the procedural violations were amount amounted to a denial of due process that denial of due process ultimately led to a denial of a free appropriate public education second the obvious second two thousand and twelve i p and subsequent amendments were not reasonably calculated to provide mc with educational benefit in all areas of suspected disability or unique need based upon the assessment data that we had from dr blix and dr patterson and third the issue of the adequacy of the services from the teacher of the visually impaired was never waived must file a response to the complaint they did not do so as a result we had no notice of their position until we appeared at the hearing and we were provided with an ip amendment that had not  we can go forward because we don't have no this notice we need to prepare you go let us to go forward like by the time that we figured out what the district's position was we were well into the  violations were not only the failed to provide the response but the failure failure to document services in the ip the failure to document assisted technology devices and equipment well let me ask you a packet that we were provided on the first day of hearing and that was the first time either myself or my client had seen that and it was interesting to note that that ip amendment was not identified in the district's pre hearing conference statement in the list of exhibits so we had no prior knowledge that this i p m and even existed until we received the document he objected to it we objected to it but and the administrative law judge ultimately continued the case which would resolve the five day rule on the in this ability of the evidence so it was still deemed admissible which i did consent it was it was admissible document at that point once the curing had been continued so you objected to it on the grounds that you didn't have did raise that in our closing brief and throughout the hearing we had testimony on that issue that it wasn't a proper amendment and what it is by that the a l j said that it was a typographical error that had been corrected that was the position and what was interesting to note though is that that type of graphical error that was allegedly corrected was not what the testimony revealed was being actually provided to the student or allegedly provided to the student so it was inconsistent with the testimony as to what the student was receiving so there really was this whole lack of understanding for my client's part and participating in the process when she had no idea what her son was receiving no no idea until we get into the testimony and get the service logs and once we obtained the service logs we could tell what was actually being implemented which was not either what was in the ip made it mean ip amendment nor consistent with the testimony of the teacher the visually impaired the with providing the services with a different amount that was unclear how it was calculated no one knew what was being provided except the teacher of the visually impaired the program specialist who wrote the ip amendment didn't know because she put two hundred forty minutes in as the weekly service and this knitter the person providing the services testified that she was providing three hundred minutes per week which was not consistent with any document and then her own service logs showed that she was not in fact providing three hundred minutes  on forty minutes a month correct and then when was it i'm on it was amended on september seventeenth not allowed to participate in the process she had no meaningful opportunity to engage in a discussion about what the service level would be she had no ability to just discuss  where this woman that came from and and why it wasn't disclosed prior to october ninth when did the school year actually begin its ninth grade year i believe the school year began on august it was the first week of august i'm not sure if it was this was sort of taking place as as he was getting high school rex when we were at hearing we were nine weeks into school the school had been in session for nine weeks regarding this is the technology piece the district claimed that they just needed to correct this type of graphical error changing the box that marked no two yes but that's not what's required by the law the law requires that they specifically identify the equipment the services in the software to be delivered to the student and this was critically important because somebody has to implement that and when the ip is blank there's nobody knows what supposed to be implemented my client shortly didn't know what he was supposed to be provided and this not only impacted her ability to meaningfully participate in the process but she also then was denied access to inforce it so there was no way for her to enforce any type of assist technology that was supposed to be provided and in fact the evidence show that at the time of the hearing almost two months into school he still had not received some of the assistive technology equipment software he was supposed to be provided and again where was he so how did you know what he was supposed to be provided they didn't put do you know what he was supposed to be providing we didn't know we only knew through the testimony as it came out during the hearing as to what was supposed to be provided and then they later it mis good morning your honour's my name is david seeley and i represent the value of my school district in this case may please the court i'd like to add a couple of made the first is this that the hearing which council says that this where they were presented for the first time on the first day of the hearing with such and such document that was on october nine and my client moved for a continuance and it was on a post i don't know that it was stipulated to but it was it was unopposed certainly  i think that gave them adequate time to deal with whatever there was a sponsor pleading for as far as i know no one no i have no idea we didn't we didn't handle and why does and that of and everything that happens afterwards in the absence of that gives a tremendous amount of freedom to to the school district to come up with and have all of the hearing because you haven't been locked into any you're supposed to respond the response gives them no this and also limits what the other cyclists bring i mean that's sort of the way the rules apply it's not just in due process hearings happens in courts all over the country due process hearing you have to add here by due process and due process means you lock yourself into a position that the other side can then prepare to to deal with  and the one the one side that is defending is not required to file a pleading locking yourself into a position in giving some fair notice either side as to what it's going to argue  i do they have to suffer prejudice ignore laws that those are the rules of the game those are the rules and then you come up with this tell me about this amendment you know this is this amendment that you pull out of a hat on the  ip have to be proposed to the parents before they are implemented and they are given a chance to agree or disagree isn't that the way the rules are playing the game is played isn't that what the statute  abstract i think one has to look at the amendment and the change was around because it makes all the difference to whether it makes it did not oh no no cameron where does it where does it you have to file an answer to the complaint you say well now we don't really feel like doing it and you know they have to sort of prove the pressures the statute says they are entitled there's plans on title to participate in amendments to the ip and you say well yes that's or says i but we don't feel like doing it we have to look at the amendment why no i said nothing like we didn't feel like doing it i said we must student now participates in this program four times as often as opposed to other things so this you can't just make a change like this without changing other aspects of the program  you can't you can't i don't think and minutes to life can you sort of add two hundred forty minutes out of nowhere that means less time in the classroom less time on generally the occasional less time been shown that this error was then factored into the rest of the i am so so you think you can make all these changes would i be without consulting the parents because it's common can't just make one change and that change necessitates other changes because the minutes come from something else no not unless it is shown that or we assume that the know why would the school district make a change to an ip and not run it by the parents why would they do this and spring it on them at the hearing why would they not notify them particularly when they are represented by counsel and let counsel know and try to get their consent or at least it sounds to me like this was something that was  was a finding that it was the intent intention and that people understood it was the intention to provide three hundred minutes a week of this service that it was written down as to forty a month and that then it was corrected to forty a week in other words that the of the change in september when this change is made why withhold it if you know you say well we don't have a check with you just doing our own or that i don't buy any of that but let's say we buy that why not at least eleven have it so they can prepare for the hearing knowing that this is now a changed i p there if you don't dispute that the school failed to provide this to the parents i do not we don't dispute that they failed to let them know this was going on and they had no notice whatsoever what is the justification for that there is no justification for the procedural the fact the question i think as i understand it under the cases is did the procedural defect have the effect either of depriving the student of f p or describe denying a parent a meaningful option and to participate and my understanding from the record is that at the meeting the initial meeting it was discussed and i think the court said everybody assumed that the child was going to get three hundred minutes a week and it and the i because you said they agreed to three hundred this was less than three hundred this was two for me this was an hour or less so it's not like you say well you know they are great with upfront in fact the show changed them some and you don't think it's necessary to provide no this and let them know in the least have them object you never give us a full three hundred one or i have said now several times but they have never gotten the three hundred right i've heard no complain because they have not claimed or proved any prejudice from it of the receiving only through hundred forty hours when you were promised three hundred your honor we were never told that we were promised three hundred that is a complete misstatement of the facts the testimony revealed that at the time that the ip neither our experts who appeared at the ip nor the mother knew what was to be offered either then everything was going to stay the same which was two hundred forty minutes per month we had no knowledge of the three hundred until the testimony came out at the hearing and then the service logs that were submitted indicated that three hundred was not provided and the date just drawn at the hearing real hundred hours or whatever three hundred minutes and missed miss knitter testified that it was her intention to offer three hundred minutes per week did it did she say that she was doing pursuant to what she she did not say she was doing what she thought the ip required she said she was performing the minutes that she was in agreement with