up the court ordered caseworker fees in the amount of five hundred fifty eight dollars for each of the victims and then at the very end ordered a fifteen percent management fee of twenty three hundred eighty three dollars which i counted as somewhere around sixty eight sixty nine hundred dollars  the rest too should order included money here for social repair training and management skill training which is not covered by the applicable restitution statute the government i think tries to get it under the statute by continuously referring to that as occupational therapy which is covered under the statute but it's ok tional training is simply not the same thing as occupational therapy occupational therapy involves providing therapeutic services by train health professional we sites to several definitions in our briefs and also suggest a court it takes a look at the website for the american occupational therapy association which discusses what occupational therapy is job training is not occupational therapy and there's certainly no evidence in this case that's any of this management skills training or cellphone repair training was going to be conducted by an occupational therapist  the counselling yet you know clearly the you know the other cases that we have the counselling is much more it's it's a fairly minimal amount i think what is it for two years once a month for two years for each of the victims one and that's the eight victims that were located out of the eighteen you know given what the offense says and you know it's almost common sense that it would require some counseling and i you know i i i just you know that one i i have difficulty with that you're making i understand your honor i guess our problem here is that through certain the government simply did not submit any evidence as to the necessity for i certainly understand your honest position that perhaps just from a common sense perspective each of these victims likely suffer some type of psychological and need some type of psychological counseling i don't know however there was simply no evidence submitted that they had been evaluated by a psychologist the first place this is for the future this is based on an estimate of future costs and we don't know if this type of trauma counseling is going to be necessary for the entire length of time or that the the amount applies equally to each of the victims so that was our issue with respect to the psychological treatment with respect to the medical treatment the government again  evidence with respect to the necessity of medical treatment for the first time at this restitution hearing there was some mention of the need to have them tested for sexually transmitted diseases though the government acknowledged they had been tested they had been seen by a doctor and that there in fact was no evidence that's there in fact was any medical need and again under this court's decision in laney the government has to submit sufficient evidence that a court seen where the victims are all overseas in the philippines these children were the subjects of the child pornography is there any consideration that we should give one way or the other the respect to looking at this from the standpoint of the relatively minimal expenses that are relevant to the treatment of how the relevant economic circumstances of the particular event victims are just completely not relevant to a determination of restitution i understand what the government is trying to do here in terms of helping philippines as opposed to what it would have been if it were in southern california let's say i don't believe so i don't believe so the problem is the general purpose restitution is the same regardless of where the victims may be instant restore the victims to their prior state of well being it's not to try to advance them beyond what they were before which i think what the government's water was request was trying to do here and in fact the court even discussing some of the educational costs that he ordered such as school supplies and snacks and those kind of things and that they were completely nominal when the fact that they may be nominal is irrelevant  children now the defendant claims that the district court was overly generous and also approved certain types of assistance namely vocational training and educational systems that were outside the statute now i would like t court to keep in mind the context in which these crimes were committed in two thousand and four when mr de time travel to the philippines to have sex with children these kids were only fourteen and fifteen years old they were teenagers raised in a largely catholic country and they were subjected repeated lead to homo sexual abuse at the hands of an elderly wealthy americans simply put these children are permanently scarred and no amount of money will make the whole in a few short months they went from being outgoing children the perform the dance performances to being a social pariah now the government provided extensive evidence not only of the damage that they suffered from three different sources but also of a provided package of restitution assistance in the name of therapy social worker is distanced the patient trainee and educational system for what to allow these children to reintegrate into society well i made that comment that it sort of seems common sense that children in that situation would need some sort of counseling or that that would be appropriate but you know taking the other side of it what specific evidence supports your contention that future psychological counseling is necessary well your honor what the government did is it had these children evaluate basically three times first  was was arrested in november of two thousand and four we found only eight of his eighteen victims in january and in january and february they were interviewed and video that interview was videotaped by the department of child serv then it april we had victim statement forms which is standard forms we use here in the united states take into the children and they sat and they fill those forms out with their parents present then in june of two thousand and five three months before the restitution hearing the world vision foundation started having weekly visitations with the families and the children to determine the level of assistance that they would need and this evaluation was done by a professional social worker who is training in evaluating child sexual abuse trauma in addition remember she won the world vision foundation is there or in that entity in the united states that performs the same kind of service that we've recognized in the past well if we were doing this in the united states we'll probably just depend on like the los angeles county department of child and social services that was probably what we would would go to but we don't have that we didn't have that luxury in this case and therefore what we did is we picked a and an international organization that was originally founded in the philippines and had a lot of ground support there in the philippines these children also were not in manila they're not in the capital their way out and them and that's why for instance there are these additional expenses that seem odd such as transportation because the caseworker actually had to travel to visit each of these families and in addition we tried to set up the restitution so that the caseworker would be responsible for transporting the kids to the medical treatment to the therapists and again as as you are know this least there i think the therapy was only set up for once a month for a period of two years and that is a very conservative approach to government in this case is not asking for a life time fair as as the court granted in the dancer case we're asking for a very limited period we're asking for only once a month and  know i think that would be you know that i mean that would cost i mean overbroad the district court obviously saw it that way but that was part of what the government was asking for sat and askance eye on the other things that the government was asking i don't think so your honor i mean i think what the goal in this case was we're in an unusual situation we have teenage boys who basically in response to this sexual abuse they have a textbook reaction they drop out of ridiculed for having been involved in homosexuals sex with an adult person i mean they're not cutting school because they have more fun things to do they're cutting school because they're overwhelmed with guilt and shame and feelings of  referenced the fact that they had family economic loss due to this abuse that mr daytime visited upon them they mentioned a father a mother a grandmother who learned spent all of their time monitoring this child we restricted our requests to only those items which could be documented and the specific dollar amounts which could be sustained by the world vision or i'd also like to know that grand vision was actually very vulnerable was the fact that they were so extremely poor and mr detente certainly knew that going into into the situation and i would argue your honor that he is getting a tremendous rainfall in this case because these services are being provided in a developing country they are remarkably cheap eighteen dollars for two to six hours with dr mitchell who's the concert with a social worker for two years to visit on a weekly basis and with these families comes to about three thousand four hundred dollars i am afraid i still don't understand quite where the seven thousand dollars come from that mr levy mentions there is a management total amount of sixteen  that's almost twenty years and are these restitution is assuming we were to firm and restitution is that immediately charge the defendant or does he for specific case worker fee fifteen dollars for supplies for the case worker one hundred eighty dollars for transportation costs of the caseworker which works out to five hundred fifty eight dollars for each of the victims i was told was forty four hundred sixty four dollars the division the government has brought up the fact that the victims were evaluated they say three times by various people and claimed that the there was a qualified social worker who in fact last developed this plan there's nothing the government cites to the dancer case out of the seventh circuit which did impose future costs of treatment for life well that case which was a plane or a case by the way in fact the other cases cited by the government these are all there was all evidence in the record that detailed very clearly from qualified professionals how this restitution is to was calculated you don't have that here