[00:00:04] Speaker 02:
Hello.

[00:00:06] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, I'm Charlotte Cassidy, and I'm appearing on behalf of JH and DH, the parents and guardians of PH. I would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal. Okay. Okay.

[00:00:20] Speaker 02:
I have three primary points to make today. First, Judge Becker's decision met all the criteria for particular deference under this Court's standard of review. Second, Judge Becker's credibility determinations underpin the rulings the Federal Court reversed. Third, ordering recoupment of reimbursement is inconsistent with Congressional intent in IDEA.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
My first point needs little discussion. Even the district court acknowledged by words, not by actions, that Judge Becker's credibility determinations were due deference.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
As to my second point, that the Federal Court could not rule as she did and defer to the Administrative Court's credibility determinations, I turn first to the Federal Court's Rachel H.-based reversal.

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
The witnesses who Judge Becker found most credible, Drs. Osterling and Jones, CBC and Banz, all testified residential placement was necessary for PH to learn. Because this made residential placement the only appropriate placement for PH, Judge Becker did not need to further consider Rachel H. factors, but de facto, she did.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
Concerning PH's receipt of academic benefit in the school district's program, the first racial age factor, Dr. Jones testified after extensive review of past IEPs that PH had not made academic progress over many years. Dr. Osterling testified that lack of foundational learning skills drove PH's school refusal.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
As to PH's receipt of non-academic benefits from interacting with his peers, The effect of his presence and the effect of his presence on the teacher and other children in the classroom, the second and third Rachel H. factors, the Federal Court referred to Ph. interacting with other children, having two friends, and disrupting the class infrequently. However, extrinsic facts identified by the ALJ, such as ABC data, emails from the school district, etc., show PH's interactions with classmates consisted largely of assaulting them.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
Classroom disturbances were frequent and severe. PH assaulted teachers trying to teach, threw things around the classroom, and forced entire classrooms to be cleared by masturbating in front of his classmates.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
The fourth factor in Rachel H. is the cost to mainstream the student, not the cost of the private school, as the federal court mistakenly believed. Notwithstanding, Judge Becker asked many questions about the cost of PH's residential school and noted it was on the list of schools approved by the state of Washington for delivery of special education.

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
As I understand your argument, even though the ALJ actually didn't, I don't think she cited...

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
Rachel H. She did not. In her decision. Your whole point is that if you look carefully at the record, everything that one would need to consider the Rachel H. factors is there.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
Yes, and also, Your Honor, to recap, you often don't see Rachel H. discussed in residential placement cases because the standard for residential placement is higher than for other kinds of educational placement. So you have to determine that it's necessary.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
And under IDEA, if a case is necessary— Rachel H. is a little bit different in that.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
rose in the context of more of a mainstreaming kind of issue.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
Yes, it does. And there is no mainstreaming issue between an appropriate and an inappropriate placement. It only comes up when you're looking at two appropriate placements. So if residential was appropriate and the school districts was not appropriate, then mainstreaming doesn't really come up as an issue.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
Could I direct you to a couple of other issues? Sure, yeah.

[00:04:25] Speaker 04:
So the district court found the two factual findings by the ALJ were not supported by the evidence.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
Is that right? That's correct. What's your response to that? Yes. Well, one of her findings was that The ALJ believed that the district's forensic witness, Alison Brooks, had agreed that the BIP was not appropriate. And if you read it carefully, and this is discussed in my brief, the ALJ Becker clearly knew that Dr. Brooks, and said several times, thought the BIP was appropriate.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
What she said was in the situation that Dr. Brooks had described for a BIP to not be appropriate, which would be, you know, school districts, which would be the failure of the interim steps, and which would also be just a complete deterioration of behavior in the home. Judge Becker applied the criteria that Brooks named to her own factual findings. The second is, I mean, frankly, Judge Becker had expertise in educational matters And the district court equated the dates on a document with the date that it was implemented and believed that Judge Becker believed that.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
And that's discussed in my case. And educational records bear different dates. I mean, it could be the date of the PWN or the date of implementation. There's one other, Judge Paez. I don't know if you remember all of them.

[00:06:09] Speaker 04:
So let's just say the date was, what was the date in April when it was?

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
April was the date of the document implementation began on May 25th.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
So let me ask you this. Why did the parents shortly after that move the child to the residential school?

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
Because... It's a short period of time, right? Well, it was a short period of time that the BIP was failing.

[00:06:41] Speaker 02:
But it was not a short period of time in which the BIPs, the provisions, the targets of the BIP... You mean the BIP.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
I mean, you have your own... Yeah, I'm calling it a BIP. You have your own lingo.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
Yeah, yeah, the BIP, Behavior Intervention Plan.

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
But in terms of the components of the BIP, Those had been trialed. I mean, Dr. Osterling and Dr. Jones, who Judge Becker found more credible, both testified that, and it sort of makes sense practically, that the aggressive behavior supported the school refusal. And those had been trialed throughout the fourth grade year, the exact same one, physical escalation.

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
And they had been trialing...

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
for years trying to target physical aggression by PH. I mean, you know, Montessori school, he had to have an A because of, or not Montessori school, pardon me, preschool, because of, you know, behaviors. Also, I think that both Dr. Osterling and Dr. Jones emphasized that a BIP is based on a functional behavioral analysis or FBA. And essentially, that...

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
they both felt that the district did not go far enough back to understand all the interventions that had been trialed or that had been used unsuccessfully with PH. So, for example, you know, he, you know, the one in question, the BIP in question had been in operation one element since the beginning of the year, the physical aggression, another, you know, in effect at a later point.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
But the point is that the school district only looked at one year of data. They only looked at the fourth grade. This student had behavior issues for years, and that's discussed in my brief. Another issue is...

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
Christopher Jones, who again, Becker found credible, testified that the strategies in the BIP had also been in place for a long time. In other words, they started sending Graydon Agar, who was not Sorry, Your Honor. They started sending Darian Higgins, who was not a BT. But they started sending him to the home right after the March IEP meeting. And so it was really in effect for a long time.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
Let me ask you this. In that respect. Why was not – or maybe you don't know but can you give me any idea as to why Rachel H. was not discussed by the ALJ? ALJ was a very careful business. So I mean it surprised me that Rachel H. was not mentioned. Do you have any – was Rachel H. not argued to the ALJ?

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I'm trying to recall about that, but it may not have been, well, it was argued in the sense that we argued that residential was the least restrictive environment.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
No, no, no, I mean Rachel H. by name. Was Rachel H. by name argued to the ALJ?

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
I hate to say I can't answer that question, Your Honor, but I really cannot.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
Were you participating in those prior proceedings?

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
I was, Your Honor. I briefed him.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
But, I mean, a long time ago.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
Because it surprised me that if it had been briefed, that the ALJ, who appears to be very capable, didn't even mention it.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
Well, I can answer that, Your Honor. Again, I cannot emphasize enough. Well, first of all, in my brief, I did lay out how she basically went through the process involved in Rachel H. No, I totally get that. But also, Your Honor, again, I cannot emphasize enough that in a residential, once you decide that one placement is appropriate, in other words, it will meet the kids' needs educationally, and another placement, in this case the school district's placement, and placement is a term of art, their program, their placement.

[00:11:02] Speaker 02:
Once you determine that, you don't really have to look at whether or not the school district's program is the least restrictive environment because it doesn't matter. It won't meet the kids' needs.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
I don't need to hear all that. I was just wondering if it had been argued previously to the ALJ, and you're not sure. Okay. Well, I believe it was argued... By name was my question. By name, no. That's my question. By name, no.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
Do you have any objection to just remanding it to the ALJ for this type of more formal consideration of the Rachel H. Packers?

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
We have no objection to remanding it to the administrative court.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
Is there any need? Meaning, the factual findings are here. I don't think she's going to tell us anything that we don't already know in terms of what happened.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
I agree, Judge Fletcher, and I'll also add that I did cite one or two cases that talked about how a court is not even required to specifically reference Rachel H., as long as the factors are considered.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
I will also say that I think our review of the legal conclusions of the ALJ are de novo, meaning so if the application of Rachel H. is the issue, that's a legal issue.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
We can do that de novo.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
I don't think we need to send it back so that we then defer or not defer.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
Yes. Thank you. Do you want to reserve the rest of your time?

[00:12:27] Speaker 02:
How much time do I have left?

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
You have two minutes and 40 seconds. Okay.

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
Let me hang on a minute.

[00:12:42] Speaker 02:
Is two, I cannot remember, Judge Bumate, is two minutes, 27 seconds the time for my 10 minutes? You have 10 minutes total, which includes your rebuttal time. Let me stop asking you questions about the clock. Okay.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
Also, as I said, you've actually covered a lot of – your questions have covered a lot of what I wanted to talk about. I would just say as to my – This is eating into your rebuttal time.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
I don't know if you understand. That's eating into my rebuttal. Yes. You have ten minutes total, including your rebuttal.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
Okay. I will skip it then. Thank you, Judge. Thank you.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
Good morning, your honors. May it please the court. My name is Sam Chalfant here on behalf of Seattle Public Schools.

[00:13:42] Speaker 00:
I'd like to begin by addressing the central issue in this case, which is whether the school district's response to the student's school refusal in the spring of 2022 was appropriate under the IDEA. And I think that the most critical point to beginning that analysis is recognizing the limited timeframe that was involved. The student first began refusing to attend school in March, and the school year ended in mid-June. So we're talking about a three-and-a-half-month period of time that's at issue. During that compressed time frame, the record shows that the district promptly responded to the student's school.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
Tell me when the student was in fourth grade or third grade.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
The this is this is the spring of 2022, so I believe that is 4th grade.

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
You're talking. You're talking about the very end of the time that he was in Seattle Public Schools.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
That's correct. OK, that's correct. So upon learning that the student was refusing to attend school in March of 2022, the district promptly held an IEP team meeting at that meeting. The team offered parents immediate interventions to address the school refusal behavior, which included offering to conduct a functional behavior assessment. and to develop a behavior intervention plan.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
Those are fancy words, but practically, what did that mean?

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
Yeah, that is the best way under the IDEA to address a behavior, in this case, a behavior of school refusal. And so the process of an FBA, which is an evaluation under the IDEA, is to have the opportunity to observe the behavior, to apply different standardized tests to understand the behavior. In this case, it ultimately included interviewing the parents to also understand and have input. And that's critically important when we're talking about behavior that's occurring in the student's home, as the record indicates.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
Had the parents ever brought that to the district's attention?

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, brought what?

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
Had they brought the school refusal problem The parents notified the school. Did they bring it to the school's attention?

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
The parents notified the school district, I believe, on March 2nd of 2022.

[00:15:48] Speaker 04:
They just discovered that he was having refusal issues.

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
That was the first day that the student refused to attend school.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
If you may recall from the record, in the fall of that school year, around November and December of 2021, There were three or four days where the student chose not to get on the bus. The parent informed the teacher of that, but she theorized the student didn't want to get on the bus because he wanted to ride in a carpool with his older brother, and so she did that. So the teacher was not aware at that time that it was a school refusal behavior. And so upon learning of the actual school refusal in March, the team came together immediately, offered these interventions, and at that point the parents declined those interventions.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
So what do you, the ALJ found, I'm just reading from ER 72, the BIP did not contain any interventions that the parents and their private therapists had not already implemented. In other words, according to the ALJ, nothing new here in terms of what's being proposed as a treatment or response. How do you respond to that statement?

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
The ALJ is incorrect in multiple ways. The parents argued that the student had that the behavior interventions had already been applied through Chrissy Behavioral Consulting, which, as you will recall from the brief, Chrissy Behavioral Consulting only served 10% of the actual.

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, that's jargon. What are you talking about?

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
What kind of consulting is this? Thank you. In the fall of 2021, the student had an outside ABA provider that parents were utilized named Chrissy Behavioral Consulting. That intervention group... Oh, actually, that was the name of the... That's correct. That group, as the record shows, completely failed to serve the student, and so the reliance by the parents on that service is not applicable because they only provided 10% of the overall services that were required.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
The other component that's really important to recognize is that the two BIPs at issue are very distinct. We had a behavior intervention plan that addresses the...

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
students' assaultive or aggressive behavior, that was designed to sustain appropriate behavior over time through different reinforcements.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
In contrast... And when was that BIP, I don't know what's the correct word to use, adopted or implemented?

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
That BIP was adopted and implemented beginning in October of 2021.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
And that, again, was focusing on trying to reduce the frequency of students' aggressive behavior in the classroom.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
Now, was that BIP...

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
adopted in connection with an IEP?

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
By Washington law, any BIP is automatically part of the IEP.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
Well, I understand that, but my question is when was it adopted in relation to the IEP at the same time or in steps?

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
I think, sorry, I spoke over you and I think I missed part of your question, but there was an IEP already in place that was running in October of 2021. Then the team completed an FBA and developed that BIP and adopted that BIP in October of 2021.

[00:18:58] Speaker 04:
And that became part of the IEP. Correct.

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
And then there was that IEP continued, and as the record shows, it was modified again in May of 2025. Sorry, 2022. Yeah, the ALJ found that BIP to be inappropriate or inappropriate.

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
Not sufficient, correct? And one of the arguments you're saying is that the ALJ should have focused on the IEP, but if it's automatically incorporated into the IEP and if the BIP is inappropriate, why wouldn't that automatically make the IEP inappropriate?

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
So our argument is twofold there. Our first argument is that the BIP was not inappropriate.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
But that's a high deference standard you have to overcome, I assume.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
Well, I believe, Judge, that is a de novo standard because that's a determination of law. And so the question is whether that BIP satisfied the IDEA. And as we've identified, the BIP... agreed to by both parents' expert, Dr. Jones, and the district's expert, was evidence-based, utilized the appropriate standards of behavioral intervention, and met all standards applicable under the IDA. Okay.

[00:20:09] Speaker 03:
And so the district maintains— Assuming that we disagree and we think that the ALJ properly found the BIP inappropriate, then why doesn't that automatically prove the IEP inappropriate? Okay.

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
Well, this becomes the second error that the ALJ made, which is that the ALJ found that the IEP was appropriate. And so she found the IEP was appropriate, yet the BIP was inappropriate. And those two things coexist.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
But temporarily, they were different times, right? So couldn't the IEP have been appropriate? It was earlier in that year, in that school year. I think right in the fall.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
The IEP is in place for the entire year. And so the IEP that was at issue at this stage of the ALJ's analysis was the March of 2022 IEP. She found that that IEP was appropriate. She found that the district did not violate the IDA in regard to that IEP. At the same time, she found that the BIP, which by law is part of the IEP, was inappropriate. The district's position is that that is untenable. One of the key elements to recognizing that, that's not just a legal technicality, but the IEP provides the actual service minutes that implement the BIP.

[00:21:21] Speaker 00:
The BIP contains no service minutes. It doesn't assign staff to do anything. The ALJ found that that BIP was inappropriate because it was not applied in the mornings for a long enough duration. the time that the BIP was applied in the mornings was governed by the IEP, which she found appropriate.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
And so those two just can't... Some tension there, but you could see how overall it works, but not that specific part of it.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
I agree there's tension in her decision, and that's why we believe it's legally incorrect. But, again, I draw you back to I think it's really critical to assess how she came to the conclusion that the BIP was inappropriate. And we believe the record simply doesn't support that.

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
I want to make sure I understand one thing about the IEP. So the IEP identifies what the issues are with the child, and then it – proposes educational goals for achievement, correct? Correct. And then if the child, I guess, has some sort of emotional or physical issue, they identify ways of dealing with that to ensure that the child receives the achievement or attainment of the educational goal.

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
Is that correct?

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
Is that how it works? And that you're referring to the BIP? The BIP and the...

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
close close so the IEP also includes behavioral components so for instance this student's IEP had specific goals around behavior and so it addressed those it allocated service minutes to address those and as I mentioned the IEP team specifically amended that IEP in March March 24th to include service minutes dedicated towards addressing the student's school refusal the BIP is designed to inform staff of the specific interventions they should use to achieve the goals.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
Okay, so then in May, as Judge Blumetier was saying, with the adoption of a DAP and a BIP, that essentially amended the IEP?

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
Yes, correct. That becomes part of the IEP.

[00:23:35] Speaker 04:
This is what I don't understand. If that's the case, why isn't the ALJ simply just saying this was so critical to the achievement of the educational goals that it's just inadequate? It doesn't do the trick.

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:
The ALJ could have ruled that, but she did not. That's essentially what she did. I respectfully disagree because she... Let me ask you this.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
In our independent de novo review, could we conclude that?

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
I think there is one potential problem on the technicality elements, and then there's a substantive problem. But on the technical application of the law, the ALJ concluded that the district's IEP did not deny FAPE. The parents never appealed that issue. The bigger piece, though, that I want to emphasize is that in order to reach that conclusion, you would have to determine that the BIP was inappropriate. And the district's position is that there is no evidence to support that. Both experts testified that that BIP was appropriate.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
It used best practices. Dr. Jones said he was impressed by it.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you this. Let's get back to what Judge Fletcher was talking about, which is our standard of review. You know, when you look at, as I understand it, our review is de novo.

[00:24:52] Speaker 04:
but we can't just ignore what the ALJ did. And here the ALJ, and our case law acknowledges this, you know, we're supposed to give it due regard, given the thoroughness and the completeness of the ALJ's decision.

[00:25:08] Speaker 04:
And, you know, I can't tell you that we see these cases all the time, but the ones that I do see, It's rare that you see an 85-page decision by the ALJ that's thorough following, what was this, a 10-day hearing?

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
I believe nine.

[00:25:29] Speaker 04:
Nine-day hearing with experts on each side and the ALJ in a position to decide, you know, to take all this into consideration, to come up with a conclusion. That's pretty, you don't see that a lot.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
I agree the decision was long, but that does not change that the ALJ made multiple factual errors and inappropriately applied the law. And that's the critical element here. I want to just emphasize again on the BIP. The evidence showed that the students' attendance at school improved while the BIP was implemented during the brief period of time. Wait a minute.

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
Improved in what sense? There were the four days when the student went to school. Otherwise, the student refused.

[00:26:08] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
So how long was that period of the implementation?

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
It's only 16 days before the parents residentially placed the student.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
No, no, no. But the school year lasted longer than that.

[00:26:18] Speaker 00:
The school year did last longer than that. The student began refusing to attend school in March, but there was no BIP in place. Contrary to what parents' argument just was, there were no interventions that were reasonably akin to the BIP that were occurring prior to it being implemented. As the record shows, the behavioral aid was only going to the outside of the house for all of March. Then the behavioral aid entered the house in April, but the student's room was in his basement, and the IEP team made an informed decision that it was not safe or reasonable to send a behavior aid into the student's most personal space without having had an FBA to determine whether that would actually elicit more aggressive behavior from the student.

[00:26:59] Speaker 00:
I also want to just emphasize one other element of the BIP's appropriateness in the data that supports that.

[00:27:05] Speaker 03:
Before you get, is that, whether or not the BIP was working, is that a factual question that we have to defer to ALJ or is that something we could review de novo?

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
I believe that's de novo review because you're determining as a matter of law whether the BIP is appropriate.

[00:27:20] Speaker 03:
Well, whether it worked or not seems a little different than whether or not it's appropriate, right? Or like a factual matter.

[00:27:28] Speaker 00:
I believe the factual matter is determining the actual facts around what was happening with the BIP. And those are in the record, right? So we have the actual data on the students in school. 12% going to 25% attendance rate. The other one, though, that I do encourage the court to review is the... Data taken by the parents themselves, their self-report, that's in the record at ER 1403 through 1430. The parents took data prior to the BIPs implementation in May and then to the end of the school year.

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
If you may recall from the record, the BIPs first goal was the student getting dressed before school. In those days prior to the BIP being implemented, he did that, I believe, on two out of 12 days. Once the BIP was implemented, he did it on 12 out of 16.

[00:28:16] Speaker 00:
And so as the record shows, and as the experts testified, it is a slow behavioral shaping process where you're moving the student progressively towards school attendance. So his school attendance went up, and his steps towards attending school also improved. And that's only in 16 days.

[00:28:33] Speaker 03:
I know that some of your objections are factual, but the legal ones all seem to be somewhat formalistic about whether or not she evaluated the IEP versus the BIP and whether or not all the Rachel H. factors. What would be your objection to just remanding it to the ALGA so that it could be done more formally in compliance with the law?

[00:28:55] Speaker 00:
The district's objection to that would be that what is on appeal is the district court's decision. And the district court appropriately did all those things and reached the correct conclusion. And so I don't believe that it would be appropriate to sidestep the district court's decision and send it back to the ALJ.

[00:29:11] Speaker 01:
What if we disagree with the district court's finding?

[00:29:15] Speaker 01:
For example, that sentence that the district judge relies on seems to me the district judge inappropriately relied upon. Can we direct the district court to send it back to the ALJ?

[00:29:26] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry. Could you clarify which sentence?

[00:29:29] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:29:33] Speaker 01:
It was discussed in the previous argument.

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
Are you talking about the testimony of Dr. Brooks?

[00:29:39] Speaker 01:
Yes, yes.

[00:29:40] Speaker 00:
Thank you. The district's position is that that was not inappropriately, that the district court correctly found that the ALJ inappropriately used Dr. Brooks' testimony to say that the bid was inappropriate.

[00:29:52] Speaker 01:
And so what if I disagree with the district judge, which I do?

[00:29:55] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:29:56] Speaker 01:
That is to say, what I'm asking is, should we be able to direct the district judge simply to send it to the ALJ? I understand your point that we have to send it back to the district court. I get that.

[00:30:09] Speaker 00:
I think you have the authority to do that. Okay.

[00:30:12] Speaker 01:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:30:13] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:30:19] Speaker 02:
First thing I want to say about this is there was conflicting testimony at hearing. Judge Becker saw the witnesses, heard it, and resolved those credibility determinations. And they don't need to be revisited now, but I am going to deal with some of these facts. First of all, the definition of school refusal by the expert that Allison Brooks relied on, a gentleman named Kearney, he defined, and it's in my brief, he defined school refusal much more broadly than when the student doesn't go to school.

[00:30:52] Speaker 02:
So did Dr. Jones, so did Dr. Osterling. In fact, in the fall and early winter of 21 and 22, The student was fighting with his parents to go to school, about going to school. And, for example, he assaulted his mother in the car when she was driving him to school and had to be taken to Children's Hospital. The expert said this counts as school refusal. And when you look at it that way, it goes a lot farther back.

[00:31:19] Speaker 02:
As far as the notification on March 2nd, where... Mr. Chalfant said the parents refused to accept interventions. Judge Becker specifically found that was not true. In fact, their own staff admitted about that IEP meeting that the parents did not reject it. Phyllis Campano said this classroom teacher was an auto-population on the IEP.

[00:31:45] Speaker 02:
So they did not decline interventions.

[00:31:51] Speaker 02:
I should also just mention that the Judge did find that the IEP was inappropriate. She found it was inappropriate as of the end of the school year. Under IDEA's reimbursement notification statute, and the site is in my brief, that is the test for whether reimbursement is awarded. And if a school district's IEP is inappropriate as of the time the student leaves the school district, then it is a denial of faith if they give notification.

[00:32:28] Speaker 02:
And these parents gave notification first. Two times, the district had 10 days to try to correct its program. That's the policy. And it did not do that. You have to ask yourself, why did it not offer an IEP? Why did it not implement an IEP until May 28th? Why did it not, even the so-called supervisor, and their ABA program was completely out of compliance with Washington regulations. But you have to ask yourself, why did Kevin Bascom...

[00:32:59] Speaker 02:
of Brooks Powers not even show up to observe the student until the day that the IEP, until May 28th, until the day, or May 25th, the day they claimed the IEP was implemented. That was the first day he was even there to observe the student, and he was supposed to be their big guy on the ground developing this program.

[00:33:32] Speaker 02:
Again, I would just say, Your Honor, as one final point, that they mentioned that CB's staff could not keep him safe. I want to point out that CB staff, or they didn't work with him very long, CB staff couldn't deliver the minutes. They testified to this because he was so violent that it required such a high level of supervisory staff that it was taking up all the time of the person who owned CBC and that, in fact, she was worried about her staff getting hurt.

[00:34:11] Speaker 02:
Similarly...

[00:34:14] Speaker 02:
And you have to ask yourself, the district's program did not even include.

[00:34:22] Speaker 03:
So, counsel, you're two minutes over your time, but so if you want to wrap up. I didn't. That's in negative time.

[00:34:27] Speaker 02:
Very well.

[00:34:29] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate your time on all of this.

[00:34:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel. Thank you both. This case is submitted.