parents right participate in the process by going forward to june two thousand and ten between eating without the parent present i think it's clear from the paperwork from both sides that the district position is it did so because it would be in show that the school district could not have rescheduled the june eighth two thousand and ten e p meeting for a time during the extended summer to participate in the key that excuses the district from from that issue from the vent but i was unable to find that there was an offer how do you have a triennial deadline to meet doesn't don't you have to meet once every three years triennial is once every three years yet and how did you all name how did you already met like about a year before and why you were you had a three year deadline already because we had moved up the to deal with the parents or question april of two thousand and ten that we implement cart as a service for the extended school year and the following school year it was not a voluntary decision i mean there was no no one was going to say you had already had three years pass that was a decision that was made and agreed to by both parties in order for the district to have the assessments it would need to determine whether or not carte would be a pro and appropriate substantive change that i p to replace the one on one a that was previously provided and that the parents i complained was a problem so why couldn't you once you had a scheduling problem have said you know we agreed to have this earlier deadline but now we need to reschedule so we'll push the training a deadline that we agreed to be early back a little bit your honour's i can't sit here and tell you that that wasn't a possible action that the district could have took but that was just one of the dilemmas that the district was dealing with and what was the other dilemma the more important to limit was that we had the final week of school the next week and we had  s y services starting after that that yes was the extended school year services the district had absolutely no offer in place that was a valid offer of faith for the two thousand and ten extended school year why do you say that didn't you have an offer from the fall that extended covered that extended school year because it's dated september twenty third two thousand and nine through september twenty first two thousand and ten the problem with that argument is if your honour's go back and look at the signed consent that the district received in october of two thousand and nine that consent was not able to qualify consent the parents signed the consent stating that we agree to all of the services you're providing for her in middle school for the fifth grade year but we don't agree to any services that are offered at santa monica high school that's the specific language of the consent but so the high school was starting in the fall so are we just time at that yes why the summer and when the summer it happened at the middle school anyway you know some of the extended school year services after a great year or after any school year progress on to the next year so your extended school year services are to prevent recruitment and provide fate for the following school year and they're considered part of the following school year so that and want to make sure i understand and answer i thought the e mail exchange he's the one before we just read highland i'm going to need to reschedule i understand it may be hard to get everyone together on a different day that's fine i guess we can do it during the swine i just want to make sure that the following two things are in are current i e p funding for sylvia rod flash her auditory verbal therapist one time per week for sixty minutes  y and for the next school year and two e e s why summer school this summer is semi hi can you check it out for me and if they're not in there can you and i just get together a five minute i need to put them in a new there of them has ever been in dispute the school district has been willing to pay for them all along so there shouldn't be a problem with them is now what transpired yeah is on to the next grade level which would be the one grade at a different school at santa monica high school but it was in the us why from before and it sounds like you consented to sam ohio none of this  honor there are strict language as to what applies to consent and i can and i can address that also this e mail does not constitute consent to any placement at semel high the offer had not been made as of the date of this e mail the offer was not made until june eighth two thousand and ten after the i p t meeting but if your honour's would  zero two one point line it clearly establishes what consent is to a valid ip offer where those in your briefs those were not in my brief your honor and that's why i said i wanted to address the contention that was made by by the  the september twenty third two thousand and nine i p v would have been valid for that yes why school year didn't they make that argument in their opening brief well their in their in their opposition brief correct i'm sorry sorry why didn't you cite this in your  to be truthful with you i didn't understand what they were saying by the fact that they were alleging that the september twenty third two thousand and nine i would have controlled that that e e s why school year because that was a regular school year offer  reviewing the documentation yesterday i must confess i clearly understood what they were saying at that point and that's why i wanted to make sure the court understood that a little lazy reason i'm sorry your honor and the rules under the id as far as it pertains to litigation is that these things are done in a noble matter and i apologize once again for not bring this to the court before but supplemental evidence is allowed in this case and definitely evidence pertaining to what the law is in a particular argument is allowed in these in these cases oh wait a minute counsel you're saying that you just didn't understand what was being argued but you really reviewed the arguments and now understand it and it's ok for you to come before us and put in a new argument a new evidence because the statute says you can respectfully i don't agree that if new evidence i mean or new argument because say that they didn't consent to the september offer that is in the september twenty third two thousand and nine p which their owners is twenty six page i p from that date where is the part where they say they don't consent to the summer the very last page of the it's signed by all the parties that were present including the provided by kim hiddleston and the suggested high school placement at santa monica high school and the goals the suggest the placement is appropriate there whether that is not new having what a year or pages than that would be  page twenty two thirty seven either thirty seven or thirty six i'm sorry twenty three to two thousand nine hundred eighty p is twenty two alone and well that runs from twenty one eighty eight to twenty two thirteen you got a better paid for the handwritten if it rose to twenty two thirteen your honor it would be twenty two thirteen twenty much weight by this court it's also not being appropriately related if you actually look at the statute in twenty two twenty you will see fourteen fifteen no where does it say that consent have to be given in an i p u your honour's are correct that the email from the family indicating that they wanted to assure that certain services were provided for for the twenty ten extended school year was enough to relay consent beyond that the reading of the famil consent on page twenty two fifteen is not accurate the family consented to the implementation of the extended school year offer they just disagree that it was appropriate in the same with the family had consented to the two thousand one hundred doesn't have a program they just disagree that it had been appropriate so there always was an offer in place for the twenty thousand attended school year so the district assertions that they had to have a meeting on tuesday because they had to get an offer play for twenty ten is just a loser there was no fire the program was already going to go in place that argument also undermined if you actually look at the e f why offer from the june eighth twenty ten ip meeting if you actually compare the services offered there are nearly identical you going to be looking at page twenty two eleven and twelve which is the offer fate from the september two thousand nine hundred eighty and comparing that to page twenty two thirty five and thirty six which is the june eighth twenty ten offer if you look at those two offers of say the specialized academic instruction offer  the deaf and hard of hearing services offer in the eight offer are identical they have the same start date they have a mandate the substance of this speech and language offer between the two i p s is identical the only difference is the start dat shifted from september of two thousand and nine to june of two thousand die but a practice that made no difference for the two thousand and ten extended school are those services are going to remain the same the only new thing that appears in the  do with the addition of psychological counseling the district office for the two thousand and nine two thousand and ten school year had been detrimental to be she developed the psychological issues as a result of having this eight assigned to her so the district to s wanted to add psychological counseling however that counseling was not intended to be in effect for the extent of school if you look at the offer it wasn't supposed to start till the third week of the twenty ten twenty of them the school year there was no change for twenty ten why in the june night in the district suggesting that they had to meet at that point time is just not accurate similarly inaccurate as a district assertion that they had to meet because of a trial deadline you are correct had already waived the deadlines that the deadline that everybody was talking about with regard to the june eighth meeting was that the sixty day timeline allowed for from the point an assessment plan is proposed and when i p has to be convened and if you look at the notes of the may two thousand and ten ip the family specifically agreed that they were not going or that they were going to waive the timelines and actually the june eighth two thousand and ten ip was already beyond the timeline for the trial there was no pressing deadline given the timelines and there was no reason that the family had to the district had to convene this meeting without the family well it wasn't june eighth two thousand and ten the end of the school year  teachers take vacations just like students leave town so teachers some teachers do take vacations a lot of teachers particular the teachers who would be dealing with the b would be there for the extended school year and in fact if you look at the district's representation in their june fourth e mail they suggested that they could have a meeting in the extended school year so it wasn't the case that these people weren't going to be around for a meeting because when the cannon zano said that they could meet again in the extended school y we met without you and this is what we're going to do and even if there were going to be some attempt to have a subsequent offer an extended school year the damage had already been done at the point the district held a meeting with the family when the district planned and it's reference or was it up to him since he called a meeting often to make the overture to the district and say i can make it on these dates it's actually not and congress intended that procedural compliance was responsibility of the school district  c but they complied this sudden as a meeting it was he who didn't comply it was he who called a meeting off they complied in terms of sending out a notice that an ip was going to be convened but they didn't comply when they held the meeting without the family and further at the point that the his june fourth e mail he said i can meet with you i can be really quickly and that was an invitation for the no that was just for the us why yes what he did say is that we can meet maybe during the couldn't make the june eighth ok and then they said we have a we have this deadline we're going to go ahead and meet but we can meet and talk with you re convention and all of that right but we have a deadline to meet that they thought they had ok so that's what the e mails say so the question what action did the parents take to follow up on the ability to have them present at a reconvening moving during the swine during the extend the school year before the new school said i understand that i'm just trying to find out what the parents are just doing in this you are vocal on the idea a kid the teachers are involved in this too is there isn't just a statute that puts all the burden on the school but the parents have a role to play because they're looking out for the best interests of their child so this is not doing some chat ok and you guys didn't even raise as the procedural violation at the outset that wasn't part of your original complaint that all came out later ok and the district hasn't objected to that ok so it's family's obligation but beyond that i think the family was in constant contact we forget the t v was at santa monica high school for the twenty can exist school year there were not contests and there was no effort to communicate between the school district and parents you know no meeting the her thrust of the idea and the process ceases to bring the people to get there and the team the parents have been meeting with the school as a team you say is like warring parties during the summer and if you don't call me i'm not going to call you so here's a friendly exchange of emails and yours and there's dead silence on the record after this and i'm trying to understand the dynamic that our case law is creating in the communications between parents and school districts that turns into a war and that's not what the i d e a was all about is so i'm just trying to understand what was your such a client situation during post school the teachers are gone everybody's gone for now i mean  case law says the convenience of the teachers is not paramount it's if it's for the kids ok so that's their obligation but that doesn't that opinion didn't say that the parents have no obligation they can just sit by passively and let this all occur so what did anything parents do to follow up on the offer that was made we will reschedule with you during e s