the form of one dollar a lot this is one dollar amount i couldn't tell how much money did it amount to you're on it with the record wasn't clear on that it was twitchin for the period from october until the ip was held in the first year and so if you've got four months about half that half year you've probably got about four thousand dollars reduced by fifty percent probably two thousand dollars in damages here you did not take an appeal from the from the from the hearing officers judgment about what did you know we did a reimbursement for tuition in this case we had what amounted to a finding that even in the context where it could be said maybe it was all the parents fault the hearings officer concluded while she imposed reduction of fifty percent concluded that at least some portion at least fifty percent of the tuitions and tell the point in time when the students transition to be affected it would be appropriate to make the school district pay for that share the tuition that the reduction of fees may occur if the parent during the course of the action or proceeding on reason with her tracks the final resolution of the controversy so that the hearing officer made a finding of that state the important is that the court did use this discretion to decrease the amount of the forty percent without consideration of the parents condoms we believe that if those two are taken together along with the issue of whether or not they actually are because of the prevailing party the attorneys fees that should have been awarded should have been zero i'm not sure that the parents conduct has the same impact on what's being awarded towards or dealt with in the case  hearings officer she was calculating ok how long did it take this to wind up this dispute and it took longer than it should have because of the parents contact which she characterized as bad faith and i'm not sure she needs bad faith in the same context that a court deals with that term but it really doesn't matter for my purposes but it shouldn't have taken until i forgot in january or whatever to resolve the dispute and so that's just to wishing that has to be borne for the period of time we're going to make the parents fair half of that themselves what we're talking about here are attorneys fees and the fact that it takes longer to resolve the dispute does not necessarily mean that the attorney's fees are extended likely to be somewhat higher because attorney meters slip in the background slowly even if not much is going on in the case or it takes a much longer to revisit the case but just because it takes until january to solve it instead of september doesn't mean what the attorney has to do is necessarily going to be any different so although i understand the argument that says well some of this is the fault of the of the parents that it took so long to solve does that necessarily speak to what the quantity of attorney's fee should be yes absolutely and the reason is that what the court w appearing on the written transition good things aren't that fast and well i mean parents worry a lot of stress i'm sure and then it was in this case which is home it was the district that filed with the process which actually makes this case unique i haven't encountered that before and the idea just dealt with i can understand why the why the school district would want to get a resolution otherwise the meter stick in the background it could take a long time i just haven't encountered that but one of the complications is that the school district started the process for the due process hearing we're now talking about and the school district didn't get exactly what it asked for either he didn't got get an education that the the plan was appropriate because of the of the missing piece doesn't that have some impact on the prevailing party analysis clarify the reason the different father who process is crucial you're honest correct you don't want to be and the twilight zone during the entire school year so you do need to get a determination as to whether or not you are probably care for the needs of the child the prevailing party status under the four criteria and the conclusion was making factual determination we believe that assertion is not correct the determination of whether could be dealt with in the learning center arrangement that was appropriate and so in this situation for the parents to take the position that the hearing after its conclusion was simply factual as factual determination and therefore any flaw no matter how small a matter how technical a fatal flaw in the program in terms of provision of a free program public education for the child is simply  record reviewed counsel for the parents made it clear that there were numerous issues upon which the parents were claiming they needed relief and as a result of those numerous errors according to the parents they should receive prospective placement at the nonpublic school board they lost that issue and therefore the attorney's fees a considering the conduct of the parents which was inappropriately thrown out by the trial court the amount of recovering the technical nature of recovery and when i see the amount of recovery i'm not talking about dollars around because as in hungary they have the district have to pay for counseling for nine months which could add up to hundreds of dollars we're not talking about a dollar figure we're talking about what was that issue and what was the record pinion based on the fact that we receive some thousands of dollars i think that's missing the point in this he said this case at the hearing office level was not about money but a step back and let's see the forest for the trees this was a child who was emotionally disturbed with anxiety disorder and depression who attempted suicide on more than one occasion his parents pulled him out of the middle school with a population of some hundreds and after hospitalizing him for about and treated him for about three months put him in a month public the part of the district holder likely during the summer to develop a program for him for the following year when he was scheduled to go to a high school campus that had over three thousand students the ip was held in july and the district's offer to bring him back put him on the high school campus in full time academic classes and the sum and substance of his ip was he would get a couple of hours a week of counseling from a high school counselor and if you felt that he needed some help you could leave one of his six rejected the ip and said we're not bringing them back that's very clear on the record that is in july they had actually retained the place for him at the school because they feared what the school district was going to offer in july and their fears proved to be true if they ha services to this trial any parent is entitle to accept some services and not others they rejected the placement of torrey pines high school and they didn't know whether or not to accept the county mental health services that were offered by the county mental to they say that they were not they were going to accept the high school they said that they were not these were the high school if they were going to put them there the district has attempted to how did arise that as we told them we would have let look let them go whether or not we would accept a high school placement through with their promise to provide a written statement of the areas of agreement and disagreement well i agree as i say the parents had stated that they would tell the school district whether or not they were accepting the counting the thought health services and because the attorney withdrew from there was no psychologist at the meeting of the schools the excuse me the school psychologist participated but the treating psychologist did not the parents intended to consult with the treating psychologist and find out what he thought about what was offered as a further he said your son will record the declaration testimony i contacted the school excuse me the treating psychologist and i asked is there some way that he can come back to the school and the psychologist told me we can transition him back we can bring him back gradually there's nothing wrong with the program itself but the program is not right for him at the time if you put him in this program it's like taking it it doesn't know how to swim and throwing it into the deeper you've got to teach him how to deal with this program i contact the council and i said let's continue this theory let's have a mediation see crawford at the beginning of the school year thousand population campus the transition plan was an entirely new i e clean where instead of attending six academic classes a day he attended two academic classes instead of being on campus from eight thirty to two thirty in the afternoon he was on campus for less than two hours a day because other academics were taken through private tutoring gym class was taken through private karate this void was not on this happens for more than a couple of hours a day it was an entirely different ip that was developed and than one occasion and put him in a school environment but this private parker has said it's unsafe that's what these parents refused to do and as a result of their refusal this district filed against them to through the back program was appropriate and they consolidation motion is denied if it's going to delay the original hearing and since the disputed already indicated that it was unwilling to postpone its hearing there was no point in trying to file when we went through the very first day of hearing the hearing officer basically just t arms and the district finally really go to mediation we told we told the district before that you we want to transition plan to gradually introduce them into the high school we told the hearing officer that that's what we wanted and we asked for an opportunity to gradually not taking him from going into the deep end with first teaching how we can handle it even not contend that the i mean would be inappropriate for him when he was ready to handle it we didn't  board and lanes and everything else we're not saying there's anything wrong with that swimming pool always said was this one man didn't know how to swim and if you take him come in the swimming pool is go if you die first you have to teach him how to swim before the swimming hole is appropriate the hearing officer school and hearing officer very clearly agree she said this program does not offer this one man for appropriate public education on the first day of school what is needed is a transition plan frankly her decision is rather services to this young man if the parents did not bring him back to the school and put him on the campus in the program they lost the parents for the transition plan path in transition plan compare the i p s entirely different being reviewed that is being appealed not an appeal from the hearing office decision i suppose i assume that we know what happens when one assumes that the district court records and their decision is only part of the record in front of this court to my knowledge  special ed matter is if you win you get paid if you lose you don't get paid because most of these parents don't have the money to pay attorneys and attorneys take on contingency the there would be a real chilling effect unless additional burden how many parents are going to risk their mortgages or their life savings to hire an attorney to fight over a few thousand dollars or nonpublic school that cost eight thousand dollars a year as a risk not raising every possible abuse these parents received forty thousand dollars and they have been penalized by this district court about forty percent of that now we did not appeal but in the in my remaining few seconds court reminds i would only ask that you look at the factors that we raised in our brief on why there might have been an abuse of discretion and the issues that this district court may have considered we can't tell frankly from the district court opinion other than a brief statement that the but in case the hearing officer chose to grant a particular remedy what we said was through our witness the you know the psychologist that an appropriate transition would be dual enrollment between the private school and the public a placement at the hearing again that was relieved that we suggested would be an appropriate way to transition him from the private school to the public school but since the hearing officer has general equitable powers by no means were we locked into that i think  transition plan than we would have been back in hearings but luckily the parties did they sat down the school psychologist is with the private sector just one had to be paid by the district to develop the program and they developed a program that was almost exactly what the parents suggested would be appropriate former high school campus for classes handled outside of regular classroom better goals objectives better counseling center until he learned how to handle it and he could be transitioning so when you compare what was offered persons what was fact the hearing officer for it noted someplace that the parents announced it was their intent that he full time at the public high school harm the next year the issue appeared to be what the transition was going to entail and the parties may have argued differently but but i i understood your position and hearing off of that you weren't seeking a permanent placement at the private school that was your finest position that michael was going to be at a public school the issue was what was the arrangement to be made the transition that's correct we were not granted at the i d p meeting before the concept of transition was invented if you will with the school the private psychologist that was frank i'll take credit for that the parents didn't compromise to move him back gradually and that's what we proposed every step of the way and that's what was turned down by the district every step of the way but that's what was ordered by the hearing officer and that's what we got and i hollered unless the court can permission to stuff one of the record with quote do you believe that the campus at torrey pines might be or would have been more anxiety producing than about the old school program that mike was and ms next i think we again we anticipate michael to have some difficulties with changing school full integration into the regular education a different point in time again considering the fact that children youngsters are different based upon what happens to them interim period of time this was a very difficult period of time he did as between the district and the parents of the school the child was i was school make determinations based upon the information available to it the court has been very clear we're not going to look back and decide in hindsight whether night he was appropriate under circumstances like this that's that's the point i'm trying to make your honor that simply because that one should have been more appropriate