physical harm to the child this resulted in large part due to the sales days decision to bifurcate the case and not follow the procedure established by forest grove and shore regional which required a l j to st consider whether nor the highlands that offered a fate whether  complied with the i d f procedural requirements and then to assess the reason most of the parents actions the nd significant there is the finding that the mother had agreed to the st five before plan issued by northern highlands a fair reading of that document is that any agreement by her schedule and keep him away from his aggressors missler rocker testified who was not in five hundred and four plan and it was retrospective retrospective testimony on this issue really begs the question of what exactly were these parents were supposed to rely upon in the summer of two thousand i don't understand that there's any live issue here about putting in more evidence or not if you if your predecessor chose to bypass adding more evidence to the district court didn't say yes we're just taking this sort of record as it stands how is that not it at least up or pitcher in the maybe a waiver of the right to supplement the record well well judge i mean this was an appeal from from an m and a ministry to hearing the doctor's evidence in at the district court your complaint if you wanted to and then your predecessor changed its mind and said no we're standing on their records so how is there of buyable remaining challenge in the case of the state of the record as opposed to what are the proper inference to wall with the mother's evidence been interpreted this way was the credibility discrimination right or is it something that is even open for it is in the record and that respect i mean you know that the district would have had the opportunity to examine but that is in the record from from our standpoint if you look at the four part as i offered and that dr healy did at appendix two hundred and ninety seven dollars it's it's it's drawing in all the tests are in that appendix to the doctor's report the nurse psychologist report so demonstration of faith the standard is whether the i p being offered is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive meaningful educational benefits in light of the student's intellectual potential and individual abilit doing the child into a school that doesn't offer a special education as i understand it this is not a school that is set up a lot of special mission that most of the recommendations in the report are not implemented no you can tell me i'm wrong maybe you can cite the specific things that are being done that was in release list that were not supposed to be done by the school but as i understand it he's not when a parent makes a unilateral placement they're not healthy the same spirit as the district in terms of developing a comprehensive placement of it that do that for granted but how is the just special education being given right the program has to meet some of the that's being offered needs to meet some of the child's needs and the mother the mother testified that there was a learning there was there was a learning consultant at white anglo and there was also a psychologist that's what angle and i was never given the chance because the  but i mean if going if if we had been given the chance to put in the evidence we would have established that it was it was appropriate place to put this child's needs all right let's connect it up we need i don't know maybe you want to dispute this characterization but it looks to me like the child needs and you stress physical safety the child needs appear to be less in the classics education context so there are some for more time  more readings and more at least not immediately in the need of the bully now we have case law that says bullying can be relevant but i want to understand how this how this fits together you know what good northern highlands have done to ensure protection bullying i mean one of the recommendations dealers report number two is this child can't be in a large public high school at all so maybe you're taking the position that it may have or could have been because the doctor found it was categorically of that but i'd like to understand how the bullying ask that it's well i would say i would say two things parents and the child know how to respond or know who to contact at the school if there if there's a problem they were never called out here they were never given that so i mean so it kind of goes back to the parents found themselves in  situation what were they supposed to rely upon at the time and so they took the action to protect their child and that's what they did evaluation if the father it's the parents of seven or this letter the next day there would be less than ten business days before the start of the school year on september on september th so you know in terms of the application of the of the of that the school precluded the parents from from from doing anything let me point of grassroots fundamental perspective how old is katie right now  hearing yes i think it would probably two or three days because no no no i don't how long would it take to have a hearing to exe have an opinion issued to bring this to some sort of conclusion if we were to associated expenses with therapies or stuff like that which are not particularly significant ok that's really it's all for years and that's assuming it's complete reimbursement rather than very dangerously reduced based on these credibility finding so the school might have got a place right after a year we might be looking at here discounted by a large fraction so you're ballpark mutual ask two hundred thousand dollars but when it comes down to it were we might be in most of these cases not all but most you mark through to determine was fame offered if no then you apply the equitable factors this is very strange in that everybody has been focusing on the equitable factors to reduce the award without st focusing on whether the district was on the whole so you know it's a troubling said rulings below that give one pause as to whether or h cases where parents have unilaterally brought their child in a private placement and without having given do it and then subsequently seek end of paid reimbursement even with some even be confident to be a or just your court had there been a finding that faith was not provided would still have a hill that no tuition should be reimbursed as opposed to giving a child that they if they if they weren't able to seek reimbursement even years later that the right to a free and appropriate public education would be meaningless there has to be that opportunity even if there's been a unilateral withdrawal and even without notice that there may not have to be reimbursement but doesn't there have to be the opportunity to make the case that faith was not provide this child could not be safe in a large high school with the kids who are inflicting injury dropping him on his head you know you're seeing with a pencil other horrific injuries y engage security themselves like the full time having a full time adult present which appears in the record to be one of the things that they had raised as a possibility a big on several points that a parent is asked to sign as this document reflects and they relate to different things one of them being that they're in attendance one of them being that pay instalments the father testified on direct that they had agreed to pay a percentage of the mother said they'd pay for so the records not really clear exactly what was paid although i admit it was a finding blow that they had paid the twitching and and he was also having reactions or behaviors that were described in the medical literature as as catastrophic reactions that's a j three hundred and twenty seven in the panics and she also diagnosed him with a depressive disorder no facts here i think they were denied an opportunity to present their case and their record should be fully developed and then the court can make our program rolling based on the full record mr leary i have a factual question you sure complain or criticize the  jaipur about your not being able to pull that evidence but i've looked and i can't find in the record where the l g hold your predecessor could put on the new witnesses other than kate are you aware of anything can you cite anything in and i think that her report itself would have covered her directly and given the limited scope of the hearing i thought that was sufficient at the time