court the first was his granting compensatory education a five month period compensatory education on the belief that there was a complete system that they should have services jim two year old twins that were suffering from which i could not understand for the briefs and i think the briefs on both sides could have been more clearly written did the twins get to the that five months herring is this what is it much ado about nothing what are we talking about and so i determined that the code services that charges concern to them were built and paid for by the county by the king's person into it and i don't think the mother ever really contested that if you look at her testimony she loved kate's she thought that they were the best thing that ever happened in the lives of her children they provided her with excellent fellow at all times i think what she wanted and what she asked for was something a little bit more she wanted to have her her two twins at the same school as her over child i think she wanted to have them exposed to a developmental program that wasn't being offered for any children whether they were disabled or otherwise other than if you paid for it on your own and so she did she she things program and she paid for it on our home she testified that two months after she did that she asked two things one whether the county would pay for the tuition understandably everybody would like that to happen and the second thing she asked for a little bit later was whether there could be any services provided on site and i think that that became a debate over what types of services might be necessary to offer that same base to get that program really going for the kids to get that and graded to get some special dialogue going on between the people that were given the service the same things and the children and their peers and getting fed up with a whole different type of service a whole different plan and that would require some thinking planning and implementing and wasn't going to be something that could happen in january when the county wasn't even up or asked to do anything for two months have to be a person right there and ultimately they did work and extra program out here of what church hearts that is that if there was evidence that they were receiving kids services that case during the period in time or at home during the period in question he wouldn't have found a guest account and that is the issue and it's a problem i asked the reason in the lower court for that very reason found is that tuition should be paid for by the county because the services and this is what was a little confusing about what the hearing officer back she found at the services that could have been provided at the same f were being funded by the county at cades and which led me to another question which isn't answered by this record what service is worse was same faith providing we don't know we don't know anything about that program we don't know how much it was was it a two hour program which generally these programs are very sure when you're talking about the age child involved are what is it a program less structured program such as a montessori remember there are teaching counting and and put pretty reading skills and that's why the shape or burden is really on the person that's saying things didn't happen so is there no is there no evidence in the record to support the plaintiff's assertion later because that was resolved but she was finding that there were packs hours missing on this communication system and it turns out if you look at the record the reason they are the same is because the service provider was doing summer camps and there and it gets back to this summer ca to find that there was a state mandated that there be a preschool paid for by the county and the services need to be provided there or you have to find that the rehabilitation act required in some way that intens receive the least restrictive need the services in a setting outside the home and it just doesn't say that the rehabilitation act talks about putting people on equal playing field they want to put the non disabled children on the same playing field as  disabled children this case actually puts the disabled child way ahead it's the only case it's the only case that i'm aware of the pennsylvania that says pennsylvania or counties one pennsylvania should say the county has to pun the sticks to come in and do developmental a would with children that were struggling to get them up to a really good head start it wasn't it's not a rehabilitation act statutory we're going to punish you if you do something wrong had a statute it was will give you you look at this family they were essentially trailblazers to ask for paid day care for children that are not entitled to it by county regulations or rules by state regulations rules and they call it the beauty of it is the  gave it to them but then when they wanted more they wanted to turn these which was something that wasn't provided for in the act and with all due deference and respect for the public interest law center where does the money come from it's not in the grant program certainly rehabilitation acts violation concurrently you could you could have that for instance in this case in the if the counties that we just want to provide services anymore and since you're going to preschool and it's more convenient for us to provide services at nine fifteen and we're not going to be reconsideration let us go back and put the evidence on the record he said it's too late and that gives you the burden of proof that's the burden of proof issue that's crucial i think in the case and that the judge believed that it was the obligation of the county to definitively prove that all provided the children's natural one those services worse each of speech therapy and specialized instruction but parents never ever argued that ball services that were provided were completely unique we believe that judge hart was absolutely correct in the decision that he reached as was the hearing officer so the issue is where were the services provided not if the services were providing the services the services from what we see in the record word not provide it the request was to have services provided in the typical environment ok but i'm saying these services the five months they were going there are no documents then we have in our possession and if there are and documents they are in the possession of the county well of course the parents i mean you're representing the parents and you can talk to the parents and you can say what services especially his instruction and speech therapy in the classroom setting were not the worst were services of specialized instruction and speech therapy provided anywhere they were not provided to those children they know they they didn't would they have been provided if the parents had taken them to kids that is a possibility if the children were attending paid the services would have been there but you're saying the children did not at all anywhere get special instructions and speech therapy right the children did receive some speech therapy instruction in a way they didn't of being in the form of of pex provided because the case was a class one is like another school and that school there was a teacher and the next school there was a speech therapist doesn't children were not in at school but children were in another school so the speech therapists was still there they came back to the county and said yes we can provide services in that county that report was turned in june fourteenth two thousand and three and they can and then they began to do that in that setting from june fourth do they not ye appearance of our children and clearly for children in the zero to three population it is fundamentally important that these children receive their services and services like services that would improve their the box county case judge i would apply the same analysis of reasoning you did in looking at whether or not the environment that the parents were bitching parent placed a child whether or not it was important that environment be equal to the environment they're there to stay have nothing to provide those children who had made much more progress on their development in social communication interaction had they been receiving the services  e they did not see the services and it is fundamental when you look at the fact that accounting then turned around and said well you know we're going to do this now and then provide the services there why i providers who provide services in the segregated placement and procedures in place the not the right to have the services that the children need to be to be provided in getting level all the way through to the district court level and here again before you it was both a rebuilt patient cleaning and parts he couldn't you recover attorney's fees in this case if we would find that there is no rehabilitation that there is an allegation that the county is discriminating by placing children in the segregated set and in this case if you look at the records that then he was being provided the services in the natural environment in the home it was because they were twins  and it was because they were not able to communicate at all except through the tax program that it was still thought that they could better be served by having the specialized services provided at cade's where there were special people working with other children with some similar problems so the children could see that other children were able to communicate with the picture books or with the different ideas and they would be able to help each other and that was done and was really friendly here is that you have to be careful what we wish for judge court was led to which we have to come right in and rebut that with evidence and you did it because there was no evidence this mother father anyone no one came and said these services were not being provided the issue was they wanted all this and what counsel saying well it seemed like they were telling jokes hard they wanted all the services provided at the preschool they wanted all of the kids people to march into the preschool for that two hour period and to speech therapy occupational therapy physical therapy  the children were at sink base then i welcome your plan against the county the county would welcome you to find against them they are there issue has always been that they can take all of those services that are provided to children these specialized services and run them out into private settings where they don't have that kind of relationship with the places as they do over thirty or something where you have public settings where you have the speech therapist on site and physical therapist where you can actually hear the children to this room  basically a new plan to come into the new setting and absent things in and to try to facilitate the children's integration in a program with non disabled children but it wasn't the same programming or the speech therapy the speech therapy that this special needs required was still being provided outside of the same exact occupational therapy obviously outside of the setting all of that outside of the setting the hearing officer in this case believe me if you saw one hand  the here in this case or in the opinion of a hearing officer that there were no services provided she would have said thirty hours speech therapy not provided to this child thirty hours of this this wasn't done this is the time she failed that nothing was done it was all