running first i'd like to take a look at the least restrictive environment issue if the court's ruling stands as it is there is no requirement for least restrictive environment in the state of  the child doesn't have to be here to get compensatory education if it goes back to the hearings officer who determines whether it's a can have story education is appropriate he could have funding for services privately engaged and  officials in the commonwealth of massachusetts to carry out the program no your honor that wouldn't be appropriate in my in my understanding the l j would see that are possible or possible i said the parties for  now what would happen was if he agreed that my clients should be given compensatory educational services then they could order the department of education to pay for private services that are obtained by my client they could also reimburse my client for transportation which hasn't been done they could order recompense for the educational evaluations and the educational experts that determine where this child should be put these things are outgrowths of the denial of faith i argue so this would be up to the hearing officer of the administrative law judge to determine whether any remedy is available whether what remedy is appropriate but it is necessary for the restrictive environment issue if you allow the court if you are the state of wide to say that as deemed appropriate is an answer to the placement for a child then as due to pro could be always used will provide the child and it is often actually the state of why the child will be in special education for math english and science and will be with the general education classroom as deemed appropriate but there are no constraints on the term as a brit it's like saying when we decide under the conditions we determine are appropriate that's when we're going to allow the child to access his general education peers and the individuals with disabilities education act is not an education statute it's an edgy discrimination statute it's a statute meant to avoid removing a child when it could  be when the child could be with his peers with the supports he needs and one further statement your honor it's it's it's because it's not a determination of what is best educationally for the child should he be in special education should he be in regular education it's not about what's the best place for him to get an education it's where he can be it's it's the idea of not excluding him if you can perform at it if you can get some benefit first time i met a child with down syndrome was in sixth grade she came in i don't know where she was going to school before because i've never seen her at that school also and she's in my class no she's not getting a lot pulled out and the department of education he said that just leaving that language as deemed appropriate for this is the fourth time in a row that the parent has objected to this kind of language and the fourth i'm just trying to figure out you said this language is not appropriate i'm just one of your clients who just had some other language he suggested a conversation on that language that's what an ip is supposed to have a conversation with the parent when this is a program you're supposed to determine ok well jimmy can do this and jimmy gets upset when this happens so let's figure out how to write that in there jimmy will go to social studies and science where there's a hands on  we should construct it this way that didn't happen you know why because the conversation wasn't provided it wasn't there wasn't didn't happen the deal we cut off the conversation he said that was an approach inappropriate to do this he said we need to figure this out ourselves and they cut off the conversation the parent is not the one who's being protected by this law under doug see it's the it's the child and if the parent couldn't say anything even if the parity greed is still a violation because that's just that's a by it's required under the statute so in this case the parent couldn't have that conversation because the deal he cut off that's a procedural violation and the deal he didn't include it that's a substantial violation of understanding what you that can't hold a discussion about this issue by himself he sought a discussion on this issue with the team he was they would not have a discussion with us on this issue look at the record they did they this is what they if he just wanted to come up with some idea on his own and present it he could've thrown something out but that's what's developed during the ip meeting it's developed by a discussion so yeah if you want to force that responsibility on him discuss one with the parent the least restrictive environment that's part of the law it's in our brief it doesn't require the parent to come up with their own ip and offer in substitution and when it wasn't due process he didn't offer an alternative like when you went to due process due process is a hearing he said what happened he doesn't there's no opportunity to offer a an alternative but what is interesting is the department of education could have any time change language and made the offer more specific it was  the l a l j determine is a hearings officer he doesn't he doesn't participate in mediation is not required element of law resolution sessions are required elements of law and the deal he could have proposed to change the language at any time since they have the good morning honors my name is gary cinema and i'm the deputy attorney general presenting the defendants in a belizean this case with regard to that issue of you know i'm going to refer to the balance as the plaintiffs and to my client as the deal they don't have ok let me in terms of having a remedy for compensatory education well i think that they have a viable remedy for that their claim for complete compensatory education they claim arises from the larger service i have a client for compensatory vacation right they have a prayer for that re you may think that they're going to lose on that but so long as it is and if compensatory education were offered the could be a meaningful remedy provided like those they have hawaii would have to is appropriate to look at you're not going to answer my question you're going to talk about something else i'm sorry the question the question here is does this law in the rule of the law permit  compensation adjustment in the case just like this where the trouble with through the process in a way but now is in another state in the united states i can't say i know for sure i don't know that i've ever cation which will be administered wherever the childless and your answer is i don't know that that is i don't have a reason to argue that's impossible so why doesn't that sort of defeat your mootness argument unless you can come up with an answer the says no that's impossible i guess the way i'm looking at it is i don't think it's as simple as putting a prayer for company compensatory education in a complaint that would sure dickie's from the doctrine of mootness forever i think when you're looking at whether or not the case is moot i think you really do need to look at the validity of the claims or also be real simple every complaint would just have comp and in it a case will never  corporation and in that particular case it's kind of similar to this case where a student had moved out of the school district in that in that case to the point use that as a factor in determining the case was moved yes it was a claim well not a claim for con compensatory education the claim for comments or story education under the brown case was determined to have been abandoned in waves which is the same kind of which is the same argument we can make here because the complaint filed with the united states district court in this case doesn't have a prayer for calling for compensatory education and so just like the case in brown i think there is an argument that that claim has been abandoned and we were presentational services transportation services were never requested in this case that they put any evidence in the record during the due process hearing that they're out of pocket for transportation costs or anything like that and so we would submit that that claim isn't that or waived and as far as the other elements of  the other remedies that they want in terms of parent training and i believe it was parent training and evaluations we submitted a declaration from a district level person from the deal in a reply brief saying that parent training was actually being provided by the private placement and that has been already paid and in terms of evaluations there was only one evaluation from two thousand and ten that the private placement bill of the deal before and the deal we paid it the remedy said you're talking about transportation turn training and evaluations are related services only for their one year period two thousand and twelve thirteen school year that's that's what we're proposition when the child moves from state to state b whatever happened in the e p due process reconciliation procedure terms of whether or not the idea is deficient whether or not the deal we committed anybody nations if that situation is not going to peter itself because a student now is in a different state then how is it going to give the parties any guidance going forward in terms of what's an appropriate programming placement for this particular student well let's say that instead of moving to massachusetts he moved to maui it would make a difference that still be moot no absolutely not because assuming he had a viable claim for say compensatory education i want him because hawaii is one school district so all the islands were all in one school district anyway so that's a different situation now let me move on to the merits of the case deemed appropriate language i think the council had objected to it saying that it could lead to the exclusion of this student it could lead to the student being isolated but that's not true because this have two teachers make a decision on a daily basis as to when a student can go to janet setting for science or social studies and so if during the conversation he voiced it to the team and he said you know i don't ever didn't sign it he would approve it ultimately the audio recording on may seventh had them discussing the language and then what happens is that that is asked ok so is it your understanding that id is all or nothing so a student either has to be placed in the janet setting or in the special ed setting they cannot be anything any gray area no mix or match you know and he said well that doesn't make sense i agree with you guys that i don't think it should be all or nothing but nonetheless he still believed id stover you know wouldn't allow teachers to make a decision on a daily basis in terms of inclusion so what happens is he says then he says i want to educate the special education and genera teachers to talk because those two teachers would be collaborating and coordinating when students should be placed in a jennet setting for those two classes and then he says i hear you on the rock around that's what he says to the team and when you listen to it i mean it's pretty obvious he's saying it in such a way that he's a scenting to the language and then they move on from there i'm not sure when i sit here and listen to a nuance of people i mean the way consent is process means he's not approving it he has not signed off on it yeah i mean usually you see parents signing off on it and going to due process anyway and then they've got a waiver issue to be with you know in this case there was no signature there was no signature but there was also as the court had asked opposing counsel you know the father did have an opportunity to say look at think there's a problem with this language can we change it today so can have another i failed to specify a location for extended school year services in particular contact with non disabled persons in the brief for his that's a substantive statutory what's your response in this particular case what you can see the need for students on me or to some spectrum to have contact with know this person this particular student yes the placement for this student the stood up and said here's we're will be period no absolutely not there's a transfer to happen there's a transition meeting after the ib was developed on june thirteenth two thousand and two there was a full discussion on the harmful effects of the change  in settings from the private center to the public school and that's that's in the record there's also  there's also a draft transition plan that actually it's respondent it's in the record as respondents exhibit three access for records submitted by the plane have only included two pages of the draft transition plan which is a schedule his transition and they argue that the harmful effects were not discussed but then the first three pages of the draft transition plan is actually in title would consideration of students possible needs to minimise potential harmful effects in the transfer from a private school to a deal in public campus and it goes through all of the considerations that the team considered at that time the debt fully participated in that meeting  that as well but the whole thing is that the men we cited to case for saying that it's up to the school also determine methodology not only ask the team determine that a specific methodology for this student is necessary for the student to  want to have student included in the jennet setting then maybe a methodology is not going to be used in that setting and so they needed to have the flexibility of having you know in a ray of different methodologies that they were trying to use obviously over time because this is a kindergartener that never attended a public school boy attended public school very briefly in preschool but what the team is telling them is that we're going to try these methodology and you know if if they figure out their one works better with regard to the issue of out of state remedies that i don't believe was in the motion and i didn't brief it because that is reelected recollect but i have read where it would be violative to creation was knocking complaint i have mucked it up with us i don't recall myself but i believe that we asked for all procrit remedies at the district level we were appealing the underlying decision and we raised the issue of compensatory education the district court i do remember that it is our in our brief in fact it's in our brief that the district court failed to rule on it so we must have raised it ok thank you and lastly i would say that the four corners of the ip is what is being judged you cannot shout challenge or p w ed you cannot challenge a don i e p transition meeting schedule which is what a transition meeting is it develops a schedule from place to place be it's doesn't address the  doesn't address the impact of changes in the child's program that's an ip issue they said this transition plan prime was so necessary they couldn't address yes why at the time without first addressing the transition plans that's what's left  less i have five cases before this court one from arizona four from a why i could bring one hundred of them because that sparkman of education as determined with the rulings that the district court provides and i really wasn't asking for a speech when would the first submission for forty eight hours in this case and if the parties fall somebody say mediation is impossible we will go ahead and decide the case if not we were for you to mediate with my and we always i've always kind of my colleagues to approve mediation because it's always a good thing i think aside from i mean we already spend all much time on this case already so it's not like we're saving much time but