Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): b. C.A.’s Claim is not Moot The defendants argue that C.A.’s claim is moot because they have submitted the requisite payment authorization to enroll C.A. at Cabin John Middle School. Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 1. The plaintiffs, in their reply, point out that DCPS has not submitted any documentary evidence, other than a declaration, to prove that it submitted the required paperwork. Pis.’ Reply at 4. The plaintiffs further allege that while the defendants may have submitted the payment authorization for C.A.’s enrollment at Cabin John, the defendants recently “rescinded funding authorization for [C.A.]’s Grafton School placement.” Id. at 5. A failure to fund a student’s placement constitutes a unilateral change in the placement, Petties v. Dist. of Columbia, 881 F.Supp. 63, 66 (D.D.C.1995) (<HOLDING>). DCPS’ failure to fund C.A.’s placement, in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in a city or town a sidewalk is that part of a street or highway that is intended or used by pedestrians (B) holding that failure to make payments in whole or in part or cutting off funds for special education programs amounts to a unilateral change in students placements which is prohibited by the idea (C) holding that in order to constitute a materially adverse change in the terms of plaintiffs employment a transfer must include either diminished responsibilities a demotion evidenced by a change in salary title or benefits or other indices unique to the particular situation (D) holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child (E) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody
Output (English): holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody