decision below creates the differently to be a difficult and unmanageable situation in a public school classroom and seeks the clarity of this court to apply the law as both reason and the plain and fair meaning of the statu in this case is not about or isn't intended to be about some general notion regarding service dogs service animals or the concept of an autism service or different understand respects at this rate apply the law  state statute appears to be different from these others in this stand on its own i'm wondering about the legitimacy of the linkage i think that the importance for the disability and so i think that there are three issues the future brings one a question of the exhaustion ministry the very base and then secondly looking at whether or not this dog meets the definition of a service animal and lastly whether or not it is even possible under the reasons first if you read the fifth districts opinion on the just the fisher didn't give issue i think a full and robust discussion because they they believe that the issue was not profitable for them as in that case it was a limited they're not just asking for permission for the dog to be at school but the by their own admission it requires an affirmative educational service and requires a significant change in the student's educational program that must and does implicate on the entirety of this education program and therefore because what they are seeking is ultimately an affirmative educational service of after the school district i think it ministry to process outlined in article fourteen ought to apply the special education article which sets forth a process and hearing system to which the party can and challenge a decision related to the invocation evaluation services and placement which is how it is a bill and i think that's exactly wh of education regulations without any agreement of the spectrum of parties of seventy five days there's a thirty day resolution period and then from that period there are forty five days in which the hearing officer and it seems as if you're asking us to look at the illinois statute in think about what it might mean if federal contacts as opposed to what the trial court for the squarely faced the issue and said this is what it says this is on oil off i'm not really interpret either what i think that that you can take and you can take the federal question out of it entirely i mean the rest of article fourteen is linked very closely to the federal id individual disabilities education is this a case where a decision has been made as to how the animal can be use if it's present in the school say and how many hours it can be with the chinle in what activities the child can engage and when the animal is present in those are the kinds of things that would good ought to be in the future sometime i don't know but that's not the question that was presented about well you can have the you know you can use the dog for this purpose but you can't use it for this purpose it's you can't you know the dog can't beat it so i mean there's there's no distinction between those kinds of service and this from educational services and those are services available under article fourteen just as there's a service available on our porch and if and if a parent were and the district's mission is there is no difference between any of those affirmative educational services and those that are attached to the permission to allow service though particularly in this context when by the record is very clear in th is clear that all of those issues all of those affirmative educational services that are incumbent upon the school district with the dogs present at school come to those are those are married and those those things cannot be considered separately because they're so intertwined that it would be impossible for the school district to just open the door and let the dog of the child in and have them make it through the school day without the dog receiving universal system not just the child but the dog constant direction for the handler and the fact the dog not be present at school without personal providing one hundred percent of the dog's care and control controverted and therefore i think mere permission for the dog to be at school would what we're talking about is really an affirmative educational service or whether it is in your permission it goes to the issue of whether or not dog is properly trained whether understand if it's the student whether or not what the gods  this to breed then sleep at school and it is somehow performing tasks and it goes back to that issue of the distinction between what might be considered a therapeutic animal companion animal and a true service stuff and i raise this again because th which were in existence when the statute was drafted why did the legislature draft it differently than those laws why the just truck them well if you look at the legislative history which is limited this was originally a much longer bill that included issues that's from liability and ultimately the legislative history books that as a way a compromise to get it passed they struck more than a legislature read we rejected those ideas then the statute would reflect the they don't want the restrictions of the federal statutes and the one that's conceivable with the administrative hearing and that hearing that appellant's have argued that helps parents should have for class it would be futile and inadequate and in addition requiring a lengthy administrative review would have caused irreparable harm to caleb in terms of the administrative hearing being futile and inadequate the first cases that killer's parents have brought this claim under the illinois school code which is the only statute there is no federal statute that speaks directly to students with disabilities using and of service animals within the classroom there's no although appellants have tried to remedy that the legislature did not intend for them to have to be futile and it's not clear there are no decisions that have been rendered that hearing officer would even have the authority to grant this relief to say to a school district that they they has whether it's district has provided the student with the free appropriate public education that is guaranteed by the federal law that's what the administrative due process hearing is that the analysis under the service animal permission of the school  is whether an animal meets the definition of a service animal which is that the animal is individually trained to perform tasks for the benefit of a student with a disability and after in november challenging we have a right an argument that they bring if we ask the hearing for the temporary restraining order and they also this is the exhaustion argument they also face it with the preliminary injunction and so have been and even if it needed it has absolutely nothing to do with the narrow issue upon which you are asking us to sustain the trial courts rule and the bottom line is the emotional factor the cost the fundraisers the assertion that chili is a companion important companion during other parts of the child's life doesn't work to do anything in undermines during the entire day and there are limited periods where kill of his not directly attached by the head parent to to chewy and those are during recess and during peak because of the physical exertion the going back to the question that was asked regarding the administrative premise is that how those administrative and been a sort of remedies are in that it hurt the circuit court in the earlier decision found that it would irreparable harm for killer to not be able to be accompanied by chewy in school and this is consistent with the finding of illinois births and courts across the country that irreparable harm results when a person w requested that killa be permitted to accompany or be accompanied by to read in the school setting and any minimal services that have been provided there in the record there are only those which are necessary in order for a seven year old child with autism to be able to see the benefit from their service animal in school which is under the illinois school code that which is his entire there are adult supervision in his life and as well as in the school setting they're told when to go to the bathroom when she got lunch really going to walk in the hallway and this is just one other thing that adult has some supervision caleb is attached to it they are accompanied together at all times except those brief times that i referred to that are in the record and and for her that to be the for the benefit of a student with disabilities shall be permitted to accompany that to get in and out of the classroom to awful functions and chewing the circuit court found with clear and convincing evidence is a service animal that fits  the federal statutes as your honor pointed out to counsel during his argument for more restrictive and are directed towards public accommodations clearly the illinois legislature had a different pontiff in mind with it passed this when it enacted this sasheer in that school certainly has a different responsibility to a student than for example a hotel would have to a patron as a public accommodation and because of that different responsibility there are in order to allow kaleb a seven year old student with i system to be accompanied by a service animal there would be some additional responsibility on the part of the school district and that is something that the when the legislature inactive their intent with the statute was really to make sure that students with disabilities had their service animals available to them at all times so that they could benefit from them when they did and caleb does benefit from chewy and caleb does benefit from chewy in the school setting as well as outside of the school setting there's testimony in the record chewy keeps him of safety keeps him from running into and into unsupervised to keep him from running into streets into parking lots he helps them transition they have a routine where they transition together of was at the time of the hearing getting to get going to school on time without behavior incidents which in the record shows that was not the case in previous years and in addition  and in addition chewy outside of the classroom applies to pressure so that caleb can sleep through the night so that when he gets to school well he doesn't have to sleep during school and there's testimony in the record that in the previous year he would miss his speech therapy you're the one on one during the course of the school day that means that from the moment when i his mother traps him off at school that one when it is there to accept him at the door and take him to a classroom she box with him throughout the school  she assists him when he's in his classroom and so instead of now holding phillips hand she's holding the beach in this case and instead of giving the commands to  ignore it but i think that they initially looked at that to us as as ways of guiding the trial court and i think also what i'm going to yourselves i think that you know she said the district has different responsibilities under the state statute that are essential i think that's the very reason the ministry to process that it has a different responsibility for a school district in a class than a hotel in the paper and that's the very reason why there's an administrative process that correct there is nothing that you presented the school district that invents them that the dog met the definition of services and the that was only then made stronger after the primary injunction before the november trial because then there