had and foreseen that the department would not offer an ip with reduced services in fact the department prove the magistrate mistaken immediately by serving a march twenty ninth notice of terminations of the child's one to one instruction with no replacement i e p in fact the d department at the expiration of the ip the department didn't even provide a new e p the parents filed a due process hearing and a violation of his right of pendency the department didn't provide his one to one services so we're talking that you think you're entitled to right now that you don't have well right under the new york state constitution my son has and under the idea  that you think you are entitled to that you don't have right now precisely it's it's in the recommendation of the p t developmental pediatrician dr karen hopkins in the record  repeat with no one to one is structured and if you challenge that today you could litigate that for the next two years and then the city's position would be a sorry it's now moot because we're past that year you should come and challenge the p not the old one precisely in rugeley the child needed a son think what your target or my son needed one to one instruction it's really the same issue the  was a failure to a free and appropriate that you might be today entitled to compensatory education that would be on is a somewhat theoretical thing i suppose but that would might be more than what you would get if you had a child who was at level whatever the child is at at this moment and applied for an i p well well you're not entitled to everything they could give you something that's adequate but you're saying i'm entitled to more than just what is adequate to give my child some progress today because my child is today at a lower level than he would have been at if i had gotten a proper i p three years ago and therefore in addition to whatever i could challenge today based on his situation at this moment some particular form of compensatory additional education would actually be useful would you know that if you have ten hours of something it's not the case that fifteen would be you know as the mission returns you have to establish that but we're not here about that we're just here about whether it's moot whether you should be entitled to make the argument that there is some compensatory education that you are entitled to today based on the failure from a few years ago that's independent of whatever you might be entitled to today just as a free standing challenge to whatever programs they're offering you this y correct initially money my son received twenty hours of one to one instruction he was working in progress and he was attending a regular age acacias school and the regular education teacher testified that he made a big improvement then for no reason they they they took his educational way they robbed my son of an education what they took took away they have not given back he lost three years in an inappropriate school the but what are we to make of the stipulations the agreements you entered into with this resolving prior due process challenge well it's important that this court bear in mind that the didn't learn anything and i maintain that i'm the the government is it asserting all kind of procedural objections to do as little as possible i'm trying to do as much as possible but another way if you were a millionaire and after you objected to the two thousand and thirteen plan you put your son in a private school and paid the bill for it there would be no question of mootness because we'd still be litigating and could litigate forever the question of the two thousand and thirteen plan and if we decided alternately that you were right and they were wrong they would have to pay for the bill for your private schooling for two thousand and thirteen but if you're not a millionaire and you can't front the money for a public or private school then they're saying that when you get to the end of that school year it's all moot and there's nothing more that they're obligated to do because you're challenging a past year that's over and in the following year they gave you some stuff based on what the following years assessment was and so the past is the past that's what they're saying here right and you're challenging that you're  somebody who doesn't have the bucks to put somebody in a project with a child in a private school up front back then and take the risk as to whether you're going to get compensation or not then you can litigate forever but if you're not that person you can no longer litigate once that school year is over that's the position that you're objecting to that right dr karen hopkins at albert einstein medical school she's now a professor at n y u medical school she's written eighteen articles and an abstracts she she's been advisor to the department of health she was the director at bellevue hospital of the early intervention program and she testified that the deprivation of education in two thousand and thirteen continues to affect my son and the her testimony's unopposed the department offered no expert they just they just sent lawyers asserting procedural objections they're offering all morning honors the district properly dismiss this case as boot because it correctly determined that it could no longer grant mr toad has requested relief now why is that first of all let me make sure i'm right about my hypothetical if mr toad had had the funds and had made the decision to put his son in a private school for two thousand and thirteen and was requesting reimbursement of those two wish and bills there's no question that there would not be the case would not be moo notwithstanding whatever services he was provided for other school years is that right yes but that's a different case your honor and yeah it's a different case because the guy is rich ok now now let's look at this case he is saying that in two thousand and thirteen the eye e p was inadequate and as a consequence he should be entitled to some compensatory education that's his claim now can you tell me why that claim is moot that he's entitled to something extra that some other similarly situated person who arrived in new york with a child with similar symptoms and applied for an individual education  ogram would yet because his son is worse off today than he would have been if he had had a proper e p in two thousand and thirteen is why is that not a viable claim i understand on the merits it might be a very hard claim to establish for a whole host of reasons but why is that not something that he's entitle to pursue just as much as the rich guy gets to pursue a right to reimbursement well your honor i think it's important to understand what the basis of his objection was to this ip and first of all it was not his first objection to this i it was his second objection so in the first objection to the ip that was resolved when the dish when that with the when the department agreed to give him ten eighty eight hours then two months later he turns around and files another objection and that objection he objects to i guess he objects to the composition of the committee here jacks to the sufficiency of the evidence that the committee considered and he objected to the fact that the school was not that the public school was operating on a different methodology and fundamentally he wanted his son to go to the private school so maybe so but  i'm trying to understand what the argument is then i thought the argument in the ruling of the district court was that the case was moot not that the case that he had no right to file that second objection because the second that he'd already settled this and that settled for the year and he can no longer file new objections well i'm wrong about the out of the district court did find it moot because the district court said his desire to have his son attend brooklyn autism center that school had denied his son  admission and that and so there's no question that that component of it but that was the heart of what his due process complaint was about he wanted his son to go to that school because that school has the type of methodology and the programming that he wanted so in the interim so this is moot because since he filed a complaint not only did the school deny his son in mission and he sought a policeman injunction and i was also denied the department arranged for his son to go to a school him given him fifteen hours of therapy which is what he claimed he wanted that's what he wanted then is there not a harm to the child assuming that he was in title i don't know whether he was entitled that's the merits of this case assuming that he was entitle to fifteen hours of a b a treatment or whatever the thing is that he asked for assuming he was entitled to that in twenty thirteen was he not harmed by not getting it why does the fact that in two thousand and fourteen it was decided that the child needed fifteen hours and he was given that why does that make up for the failure to provide the services in two thousand and thirteen that pathetically he was entitled to right so it doesn't because when he asked for those fifteen hours in subsequent instances he was presumably operating on a basis of what does my son need at this current moment he said for compensatory education my son did fifteen hours he got the fifteen hours the year immediately after he asked for it and he got it the year after that and in fact i know mr toad wants to bring in all these other due process complaints which we allege are not even relevant but just so your honor just so this pound knows his son actually has been getting fifteen hours since that period basically uninterrupted until those fifteen hours were characterized as compensation for a past failure they weren't characterized as compensation per fast failure but it's they weren't given in a vacuum and nor were this nice and it's not the the usual position of the department of education in all these cases that we see case after case year after year that each year a that each year stands on its own two feet right and b that the appropriate public education is not necessarily everything that you need or would li it's just enough to make you make educational progress so i'm not sure how that is totally equivalent that you get fifteen years of education services in whatever form today because that's what you need to give you an appropriate education given who you are right now i'm not sure that's the same thing as saying you might be somebody who is already further advanced right now if you had gotten an appropriate  comes in at the same level but maybe he would have been a different level maybe would've had been able to progress more if last year's program had been ok and i'm trying to and i grant you on the merits that might be a very difficult thing to establish maybe the answer would be no we that's not going to help it's you're already irredeemably harmed by what happened before sorry but we can't do anything more or maybe it would be yeah but there's a point of diminishing returns on this you can only get fifteen hours we give you twenty hours nobody can take twenty hours of this kind of service there's nothing extra that can be given but those are arguments on the merits that's not a question of whether it is moo to be able to challenge what was in adequate in the past and ask for whether or not you get it whether or not you're entitled on the merits to it some compensation if i make any sense of it let me try to answer and context the both administrative officers rejected the merits of his due process complaint and of course in the meantime as i was as we expand the brief and i was trying to say earlier which is that the school gave him those fifteen hours and that's what he asked for he asked for just an increase the ten the fifteen now the reason why that in a given his repeated due process complaints and given the department's repeated willingness to give him fifteen minutes this matter moody's because that's what he asked for but also the nature of compensatory i think i think so so two points on that is i think the district court at the same time recognize that they do stand on their own but i think and she was also explaining that the issue at this case even from the original due process complaint wasn't about want to want it was should my son go to that private school and so the issue of i know mr choate in his brief seems to make make it as if this case is all about one to one this whole case is about one to one and the fact that in each eye has been getting it which by the way the department has been giving because to mr about hearing after said that as a general matter putting aside what he wants there is no denial faith but putting that aside and we've been willing to agree to give him that fifteen hours that that's not really what this case about which is why that understanding doesn't isn't there sort of that that part of the decision doesn't make it defective in saying that it's moot it's moot because the school that he wants no more was limited he's already been arranged  go to a school with the programming that he wants and the department has given him the fifteen hours which is what he wanted in the first place and again my understanding is and i spoke to the department just yesterday is that he still continues to get the fifteen hours and in fact he has gotten some other i think others sort of tutoring services so the fact that the particular given the fact that they have to review his son's circumstances each year they don't give it to him it's because the the department's position is that he doesn't need it and that certainly is validated by the determinations by the two mistreating officers that he doesn't need and i just want to answer judgment is final question about you know the merits of what not and i think this overexplaining this case is originally about getting a sense that private school almost over a year later he moves he has across motion to amend his complaint i think he realized that it is moot and so he then says actually what i'm really here about i think judge lynch to judge magistrate judge or unseen to your son frankly even if we were to consider what you think this case is really about and you're proposing many complaint it is futile there is no case here and of course we point out in our briefs he doesn't object to that recommendation before judge towns he doesn't even really frankly appeal that decision here he still continues to maintain that a case about his school his son's attendance at a private school is about want to want and that's just frankly not the case that and in effect that the court also said that if the department issued and i e p would diminish services then the case is not moot lo and behold that's precisely what the department did it issued in august a ritual act ip providing no one to one services in the it the matter was clearly before the court on the march twenty nine notice of terminations of one to one services without providing any new ip that the department was cancelling  terminating his services and providing an inappropriate ip so on the one hand he's trying to argue the merits without hearing on the merits without evidence without any witnesses  testimony was clearly ridiculous she sed she she didn't she couldn't even name the date methodology in her school she said that was teaching of autistic communication she didn't know what it meant meanwhile the doctor who that's not the case at all every year they have fought me to the nail about the services educate two thousand and sixteen i had to file not one but two cases they say they were determined with a child nothing is ever over and this court has the power to grant meaningful relief thank you he said will reserve decision