%PDF-1.6 % 1 0 obj <> endobj 2 0 obj <>stream 2021-06-14T11:39:07-04:00 2021-06-14T11:39:06-04:00 2021-06-14T11:39:07-04:00 Adobe Acrobat 17.0 application/pdf 97-001.a1 uuid:5aa73858-3a47-48b8-a0a8-8dd0a0e02d1f uuid:60006fa6-1a58-4f29-a7a5-6a08b1c64ec7 Acrobat Web Capture 15.0 endstream endobj 5 0 obj <> endobj 6 0 obj <> endobj 3 0 obj <> endobj 7 0 obj <> endobj 8 0 obj <> endobj 16 0 obj <>>> endobj 17 0 obj <> endobj 18 0 obj <> endobj 20 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 21 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 22 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 23 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 24 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 25 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 26 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 27 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 28 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 29 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 30 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 31 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 32 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 33 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 34 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 35 0 obj [19 0 R 19 0 R] endobj 19 0 obj <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>]/P 17 0 R/Pg 51 0 R/S/Article>> endobj 51 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>> endobj 52 0 obj [58 0 R] endobj 53 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f 0.604 g q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 708.75 cm 0 0 m 0.75 -0.75 l 579 -0.75 l 579.749 0 l h f Q 0.933 g q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 708.0003 cm 0 0 m -0.75 -0.751 l 579 -0.751 l 578.25 0 l h f Q 0.604 g q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 707.2497 cm 0 0 m 0.75 0.751 l 0 1.5 l h f Q 0.933 g q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 708.0003 cm 0 0 m 0.75 -0.751 l 0.75 0.75 l h f Q 0.604 g q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 573.75 cm 0 0 m 0.75 -0.75 l 579 -0.75 l 579.749 0 l h f Q 0.933 g q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 573.0003 cm 0 0 m -0.75 -0.751 l 579 -0.751 l 578.25 0 l h f Q 0.604 g q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 572.2497 cm 0 0 m 0.75 0.751 l 0 1.5 l h f Q 0.933 g q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 573.0003 cm 0 0 m 0.75 -0.751 l 0.75 0.75 l h f Q /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm (//-->)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (DATE: March 24, 1998)Tj 0 -2.75 TD (In Re:)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (--------------, by his parents,)Tj T* (------------------------ and)Tj T* (----------------)Tj T* (Petitioner)Tj 0 -3.25 TD (DDESS Case No. 97-001)Tj /TT1 1 Tf 17.628 -2.125 Td (APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj 2.806 -2.125 Td (APPEARANCES)Tj ET 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 261.2061 498 cm 0 0 m 89.338 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 247.375 473.25 Tm (FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj /TT0 1 Tf -0.013 -2.125 Td (Carol A. Marchant, Esq.)Tj /TT1 1 Tf 0.568 -2.125 Td (FOR PETITIONER)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 0.042 -2.125 Td (Ann M. Paradis, Esq.)Tj -19.879 -2.125 Td (Administrative Judge Jerome H. Silber \(Hearing Officer\) issued a decis\ ion, dated December 24, 1997, under 32 C.F.R.)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (Part 80 \(Provision of Early Intervention Services to Eligible Infants a\ nd Toddlers)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (with Disabilities and Their Families,)Tj T* (and Special Education Children with Disabilities Within the Section 6 Sc\ hool Arrangements\). )Tj 37.798 0 Td (The case is before the)Tj -37.798 -1.125 Td (Board on the appeal by the Department of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools \(DDESS\))Tj T* (from the Hearing Officer's decision. )Tj 14.675 0 Td (For the reasons that follow, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer's dec\ ision in part)Tj -14.675 -1.125 Td (and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (reverses it in part.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Board has jurisdiction of this appeal under Appendix C, Section F. o\ f 32 C.F.R. Part 80.)Tj /TT1 1 Tf T* (PROCEDURAL HISTORY)Tj /TT0 1 Tf T* (Petitioner is a 5-year-old boy \(Child\) with autism eligible for educat\ ional and related services provided by DDESS or at)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (its expense.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Child attended DDESS preschool programs during the period September \ 1994-May 1996, receiving special)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (educational services. )Tj 8.58 0 Td (In August 1996, the parents unilaterally began to provide the Child)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (with Lovaas therapy)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 541.5215 176.25 Tm (\(1\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG q 1 0 0 1 541.5215 175.5 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 552.8901 171.75 Tm ( in the)Tj -44.741 -1.125 Td (home. )Tj (The 1996-1997 school year began on August 19, 1996. )Tj 24.968 0 Td (The Child was present at school on August 29-30, 1996)Tj -24.968 -1.125 Td (and September 3 and 6, 1996, but has been absent)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (from school since then. )Tj 29.798 0 Td (After making two attempts in October 1996)Tj -29.798 -1.125 Td (to get the Child's parents to come to the school, the school administrat\ ively withdrew the Child on October 16, 1996.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (On November 18, 1996, the Child's parents wrote a letter to the local DD\ ESS Director for Exceptional Children's)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (Programs \(Director\), with a copy to the DDESS Superintendent. )Tj 25.967 0 Td (In that letter, the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (parents requested that DDESS provide)Tj -25.967 -1.125 Td (funding for the Child to receive the Lovaas program at home. )Tj 24.826 0 Td (At the end of November 1996, the Child's mother called)Tj -24.826 -1.125 Td (the Director to request an IEP meeting. )Tj 15.884 0 Td (By)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (letter dated December 2, 1996, the Director replied to the Child's paren\ ts.)Tj ET q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 12 0 0 12 16 39.75 Tm (The Case Study Committee \(CSC\) met with the Child's mother in January \ 1997. )Tj 32.344 0 Td (Subsequently, the CSC and the Child's)Tj ET EMC Q endstream endobj 54 0 obj <> endobj 55 0 obj (P0ͭ\\6C) endobj 13 0 obj <> endobj 56 0 obj <> endobj 57 0 obj <> endobj 61 0 obj <> endobj 62 0 obj <>stream H\n0EY6B2&REE*{HA,z(>~\8xtѻME4 Slk{oyT Y1q ]Ieqr9o>KҘګ,q6 &p"0o;3 #̩pʼ3̅p|>2Og#''欖qf7->}hI%r6o7}(rZr[G6WDЮ endstream endobj 63 0 obj <>stream H|y\Gozp rx 3MfdI1ٍQ7"P9(jFQVfD1~4֨?ϫWUx! }ެE^*o\jlZ~( ȏnHbN%o/U~0mHlEev"OH{1_d  ?jzFQ61}cM\|BbSRJSJpI#!Y!!OzADd);RrUy<;ѐnn(`1fT[po yͩ)%'p~iZ}éLp,8}SBx7u&D&u'ւS[{{'>Ok^rap99\7Y@Ցr p Qk ktsU'~E uleymn6mMilx|;a1r pmeU@*WZݪU1k^նeU55j6[bܳܶpZ[-B,G,+----,ah 5В$$Ӏ[ !"BWk^s |F0R„\Tʑrz2SW寧}{=#O"xϑ[yypס^5M}9V.oa)%w>2x/ALE.c V98)D^||xgX8Rl7tģ 88(IE"4*P~x88&! T` 0!oa{H(w؉q[-ZJnNIh9̴ZZGiFDi m/@9Kh;=M>T|q?^*Ci~:@եz؈MT0P ` #T_n&)d #(TF'N) 0Rr* st{jH1n6]<43x&/*^ȋx1.ॼ ^ɫجM&j^ky \yo-iSwNŻy"żA>ćp)c|I>ŧB[:Nѐ%Y+2:Y/|/Eė W|_[|]!ED UW磫u\O^Ug|9{{Ϲ\` wҋ "I13&!Ҕ;HG@ `8QRl3_>?<'TtfL0x <4x2:x ox=#|'a1`)a9̂2հPVJ|!kȚ2NcE! 2EI"MHD.1yL2E4ɐ@ )TjPMxJDEIL)JiNIYlʡ\ʣ|CTW֖TSjH15Ԍ^Ԃ^2G+Ԋ^ԆR;jO#uS+_Lݨ;ԋzSK? 4{ߚ;殹gow;C<6OSSjʂ %H ҂ # h 4^Q4h,:MM'&E?_Kޡл[z< `!,Ű2~ aUZXw?፼7ہ4c83޼n&p)㭼vN%?AO \̿HLt1Ss|X,+XAl;N[kN2ߛ9mCqL%qU?Hv ;.aװ[=h=j=iO=kh/˶^W5{ް7-{;ŗx?\v +UU׉upt]tu]v=wknu)7~gܹ܈GKѲhyTFcƹnrd7Mut7tnyn[>8|O\UWIG;TzIBH#p )I(&J %DC UTV\Y 4J U84&]vߜ{wy_w]q()aX- o^Ń0"(Z.heًjO'(X\KbxjI p S"&ԊZSz9ԖޠvWJLoRz:R'L](R)R7N=(zR/+>ԗQ@4W[4FhCX>q4&DlEh2eJh:e'4f,MsS)iY_ ͥhͧi-E55] ##̀?ܜj9W+To&Q zV=ZLKh)-希VJZEi eZZGimlڄi3mh+m/+vXL[lh7=ata:B9tqʥ<:A') Ni:CgJUy]Oק /~̢"L2];x} +*)68 _JLeqU0өFn@u3Pil"@txO31ztՓy1T S0CTWՍ~*TE\B 1{ji(~b<dz!Ub~sH6-Ex=<T{Y#븑nKw^vIЁk45ݵV @/wS=(1Uj ;;OEbLYF r\+yx]jz䭬RgWoty?orϥ-dMgs=k_ʋx (>Vg{{,La8M9ױm͸[~'(,:sFg胣vr!w{ \v pw(\8q_G ޥD.T(;F* NtZFE X3^҂" v JB;R{IH{Z[h~g{^NJ+V&|(ʜa~ϼzUlE[>GK/m2ؐ5|ț:o5OkQys<҃$Gxst'[<99M85-4˜A3X.pڸ-c=|E$urv{ .%l<}%7@;)hq 4NDN_b$x8 dj׃bD*|7i֎iI !Қ@`MdzmaY`o"[t%D׎fe[bc6zM: &mGO`- 6%9/\!k ~ˉV<D$ni q ૘GЋv O0Ø=>̟UE/$s" źFt'w*q!W.f8`80Ӹiv8r)=P NӝVgcAnX9r^>D{iDeܡZH{kNe.P59z 06P=B7.WO2g ; $jasNb-kcbgQ9~;r.A^l(j\"!Pl/ZXΟ7㮖$qNeEf[hV8|19UOJe=rS_.$tM#TI2ę!|$CyД$ >1&,fIGkD夨Z>EKNcξS}J,25}1"X3ıu2EZ&Gcj4PwGmiMĢ.IJ}*nj"ѷQ ׷jb7 Н{6'T+aQm#/$N%*jգ\II\RwtfUH[bz kǂЈE %du@Yx(2#C| "; 8 daPPX0 |E+|K~t%2*YL CrV8 H5Vح ;6A}lD$AL%Um 2%:lm6[耙MOY]˒LY-UsHm!$Xn~h0 2YESBOgsssӃ#zBN'{ekF;,:ր Y 5/ts0J9`Mt/xmIKΞG[nOM 0mR|k՟K_c@˷]Jv3 ]>6|nPY\R6hT"z)u Ё?q W.7y{|w9cl~9W8!`@Nn+B! 05mPa@th] ҊaJǖmvGR 6-KUqXϺ}׉x>}%~>#Ia+$Ҭk>U ق#$JR*&#Ws1w:<73xW&OZm!<R)`Tt0:cXwŹ8+xߌ=SD7hMP"BZ!##4gˢjw RF^$dݥQzTS`(t<* s?c9jzkR"w]U[~6ov[w{Gki[lC^\` 9?;lVmu2`Cg@C~ `:;`q6_W7@_=\ak/B*1WkL!^UQV kfhUd5Pi!5PA(Aa+ ^d Iс8)JU~ڸRӂ-āM!mYwi?_ౘQ< _S0y4\Q41x0L'] f\_!v@|8"cq8{9ILTPX̥פ%XOK1)5YX JnY6F%`@aڊ99N(S$\K䈻 nøLva/ҷДAt*}Ѹn 26;qa6H\15`ŭmT(?Uqa, L@oG bwX (/0nO Z1X6x4+q\t9%*VX"H{pǽtݒxmwҖ~-DjH֫/vҖ-:i*՟/u,]zv |ni}N>tG7|>M %U5$ER,tV-] f#em‡ML3vcY[ޤe;r[Cn73Hf Jǧ)%UV4.+,rl2QX@J3L]ƊzaY``JzwvY|8 Ӵ7l{_wcq$оlk.ܡTrr"ˑ*{/F VzA75{j׈wLSU~5>"ã>9Gy_ӫlkpGOvM-.$d%}Xo.`u21kFf0q =k82ovp+O1hz3g S64c.G# t4 q@}PT/G8PX~-&Lk0[= v Y5.vFز`"܊B{}I v\絎~/5nj7*K8&n,ײ@{;×!ʷ~sW!X#9q^tQTmw^7ij0t;6akVyG|ošo0 {z7{NL@i8c?aԊazfDKFUGRTǘhlڸ] pw w׉]uiL(0|G9Mmyp_Otvc:@a'7 .bb12 `&6'TzB +j m|k罥޶[xjD^L>اsvNTb!k*F 274jڕ؁ŀ{ $t)uү.}Z? wpt}a5Z/|ȇsͺ;MpS }.?'X=kfNe\w.=b U BgYּ屚iz7_`0e*nv[Ϲz7n@lZ܉ 粎 u N=r׭skLz~T"Xx=|-Գ)?T/]BK)I4LE3ʌzBOjhlIX:e8leISYtU cf*F["r>5WeUqʃ*|AhÐIXx+~!Ԁ nJ ݥ"݋ҽ"X\0ğy{Xlpua@5Q"d!бfb3-,:FAlRڿTΠƟ\TPN%wGٵHwp&yrK\ =$Y y'!oUno. jYUPssy[g:ٓ (,*R) ͉Nt_:UՍᵪl(Xt@`"BatG0Q\[A21 1et wAQ"ͶE:!3ba=A 7<0-`/ z.˱Є6Ok hfsvkn=X^ra:}g !9n+g3 ( c☸\Wl?/Pszgkls/ ;j*BaƔp#+JӠeȀtA"uۮ6m,N)TemoϹZW?~io3eXbG!=Q%~)^>ї$AqX.-RT t:3;3Cj/e}?_"''BsST ?Kx)&n{ տ/Oy3:<α| > "WbN:YH E]%F4OFY8q6C[v8S}Ҷa,5-O6)a?b`EC #0 2DpOs+D+!%V( &]+~X"\Ag^ pxZ.#b($o?zK?/_v۟gWuuZh-Za\/ֻN}e!hhkP[hw+۲xN)>2yFA80y 3Lܔ<**7t;11JY۴/B\vHh~L7Q]Wy)Ro5e5;6($5z %L kBeՅCt -ӺrQu-vE)q#wl{b,oi"̴NG=muPŰ,skZ!+ 瞧3viB:bLUjQhxA^yv f0 u54CL#n7DyE7 gkW 3k&Lb ]u)G(I="v")tb R.>x'!N4Ba)s+TϮq`[ͻ2 Ly|QRnPnD3NW@j޸e%Vo<_9 B{l I2UFrhGV>}w6~띍wľ%cp&IHdu-/i j(RmP 6 ihC68aX SWu*6 mц)?hѝ%?}p,]pc\ Ԇ&Z' a:.@bC ddi.5?sr`h4Y|o} :DPil*ޏ:ӧji{FmMHH/rҔN8Ӵ$}YIԕBJKK˗SS@da=tA(s@=="/p{(ţBIvhcm]oӤ]vhM!Fԇth+1cxɷ@32*3}(ș垀!Sbc>-͖3;7[[7I|Ֆmhsh\Mjzk R3}+ m7v6 \~CA3֘k /VƇ+|xodX f=<Ҹ٭w^ٖ=4@m=ui9Ilyvߋ*$MM+z_EƽB|TuT[.Lbµq.LlayQ2ILpE}r"HSiۏ@Ek1gh6LS4$8qg[us'9'2naD8)؅)8xl}B@[Ͱ[a?ŘysȄl* ش TnEZ=ŮjN7WڶQٗ?K7B-L GG$[R#C/˗? 1 ŽGI{joz 9e$1z'qONxFeIIyNRb$g2̱,t+N`FqD@}‚ /rF;7;#r(jK&S(Bv% UYrj\CCNz^ե:XMGf$5,FKp3Uc~WzrͧF*쓤,YD["˾㻧;5>kylDh~f~pw.“]4y~\lQB eILSU7eh%32Z΢"=ǖY{eC\$b{{NDߍK<(*BI!$k"!EDpATƠ;!]^Y6M Ƣ~m7rG$y qbJF:繮5OnVHR,hgF7a*QRu8x[ͫ+K-@4ĔDlf_{Zq)EW Jf?NU&27g1V6Oa`C+iuZPRtn0kt Cy+qtL Ÿ|IVǧVf j,j-IIU! U%Y,:rkeT7Dq$gn#rbI],0,lca{x eyh~:2YKi]/K+̕fͫ ufѡtQGU֤_u| >V kB] m ,c+ ԺVq%}o7*xj%T)i|hz^k.HVet-ɣ>s"s $K_D"Ҁ#%N`s2u [=8րgM0.yk hdӹN CF; 3=oɵt仮Apd(|̆+U&f+~<6YGL i+zz ̪ fVւaꏍ3{w{wzoϷw;6 i)\j*ADi PEU0G a5-mZU $U& ~o DNo7ogfgގ%wZv/۶k-Pméto6ưXv1ӹi&M۔q ئha%ňB;Tw`Jm= [tNc gH!SY?:>_:/p]KA#_!9sC.호 n}o=AW#];H7p >e^y/o*@ ɾw?%}qX-Z$]"ų՜ooINJryZ:یZV63_UMDzF_ A[&(ěmk.J:3xW oiY5xƸfH5e]Jy! P8%v9ED5IkO5KJRgi$eeZ,#yU5%DRJe&]B!O}QL<_O}5h+s@/jCT}H`iN74rkq'ƀ^}_ǫ^/ҕJFȈTThjH(ZJ3kT^D?:đS:H!'_Ӽ1Ys"OikJTˣW|[{ZV; G"GQy,2M%]1#cGձi#M`& R p>?skkʚytȷ%}w>_-w7ݾu]<;~5NdM]ҸS*~Z;h\iW_-ء{I5֤rR3և:~e}D/"]&;%Ӊ枢WNLpcNt:fTL'<9yĩOu=wz:+zA{z;†*^]ؐtbEu\ڋq2LI{=ʮʐ*j I!\&j;o$t, z&_ epACք!!p/nhlCkY:|R274a#UP,-V7Xko&Ph-(M(ЋZIOc"bT.,gC7b 1}Dε[L੝^]C (R#^NMTKSC;^<^'M&M6H*u;$g#0vx"& xYnT@FwI/=ܱm+J1J?_=iS?--?y|CK{sO-[WmǛJtؒ{{MU-?ٛWYK+_{ʖ‘H16,Zj2w_!))n D*1)1{A>Xj1JfβO{Jr9ÈL.•Lt*_ePL*D2L*Ħd<#_%&k$6Xծ]cSƦǰlHKT/ܴR=lKay囀hS5NV~Kѩ/j$;&m$5ti .vhl:⠌ލ|Uˊdh~߾t?2xXX:Zb;>PMk ?@w'cA~K g{{Ծ!F37ʫ _B Ch$Y?W4sO դ9gg#윟v sBg[^}p%?c_v+x.H$ 醬lH ltL lcp3 6Oe@_mD}YZ=ۋPO6iW؏lv{;؛ /~ ,`< NH}K~wX7tĺ[_͑wМO ܨmB_fKG!ٗƚ0%$!6{ i?T?<7}VUq{nH( -m- XHA`Eʀ0e6@Ûuo#- L0]ب8X@ o"K`}=z=m)Eg79>{QFht1KVt:/dí[X ~)#IbxPg\+܇yO06r{|;uUyLӔ[_s+oLoIƾ [_g5g(0Pu I=|`x,3t3_yR˞wR~(7K {Xg` 뙛5/([ʙ@* w˛?ΓdFLS[I2WyҮ|#f*i|2D #*Q_U.&$~H^2='O'O*Z̒rğf=iץ Vo8!)Ye(N4흌V|'0"1䱎_ S&|I; # ? )6JI@+,-xε%#" |.|&þ<A`b/9)g>?+}~eHEcw7SΊ>;[842~l?F(ۏ#aose2o3[ָ oa":rnrɣ$5ȣZcrS+}ĺxg'dɛ~{ҵ }Tn"Ι4_!OwkdƂB{P>ŕ)9ĦMAd;GEtI2v0k+j"+̞GMʙ T32'ՒɧSAE ],2ysuJgUp$VL=cߧLP8d{;ؿLبZ MO4Oi2F:sX_4ރmؔN䖯K\{6.#V ,g]k}ϐ?$ƿ n17d#R2~< VxG^ ui9;*d~v\=< >fu~Nֹ]egWnu?] 5@: OL؊~F5tNw;ry^v۬ ^\䶳2 glCFM`+:#zG婠^*=8%Ci?vtRX^Ed-bPo^N|n6x eXnnO+$;^Zhja"c2p脸V{#OۻhoWoKcm%_cCWnU{m; @l*#v#Rpc-ۉsB NeN5k&)%71>5:Hq~*m[UXx*36E]g]z]k֛ xvu]OX&l 6'C _@8#WAW`jEԪr'\zMr=ߗCn'GAѷ9GJlJƚ01J||f`- 0N|m5/"U1!&_lE.1Zbe;#7De{2xK"wӉ8?ɠΦ:ZkY~ yQGwO]~YWyEOydB $VP=}ds{"; Ԗ+4jC i" Fڙ EmӾvGs5)>RsqG^\FNӟ0EK[֥:v{unG# Kv-[r/^Op{ tqma dd $ Čl$rfe M1q!#/Hˠմcb;>fFǹRJ@7wksuVps:}PV0" jboO|%_Ҁk̏B~[GcB~aB~Gc56GY*䗥A| y^݋}? .O:ѷ гճѣR}Xxw,pسkd>~7UhyB1 -_}FS/Ȼj> /Cm2Z?I/}ehL0qA$TU\Q=[;4c sKpMZcτ6IGױ]]`jk/X[{M^M kBs8oAFTݨMMX]vM4hBlS5zh]g21y)|uͷQv. b)#[1QoIRAmGb־bi)K bYM7JmM˥]H$Vy1v]ǝu˭wS'^> {շDvC~s7J} Hk(+lw¿&QԩȣpM36 {9ĀGyʣnkaZuڻ }C|Wؗ]k,8%* c6 m帒sN`/Tc[ood$\"9z_GWEY[h|]}uҷS.{qܑ&p΁Lp,ۇwtkz0PT7[_uP{/|ǙwkEsp9G2GJuP_`"\'/Wvא]vB30E=3!skb{@HP_Lu࣎Kcw.S2|g>e=ΟUc̃8von"TbID8*0 $Ȣ"k@,VF;hP(ZK;C'ՑZZ(V2mqB>m&{9l';δ!Ҿg`ΊaLI0. M[ቝwc>fC ݫAvj6Ts`cb֒,8 ʡ!YQclPmV" ,; bφ/\<\Wjuebn;AW5&fdw`b4M!^/| wşQjeb~;`B.m ?§C֓20lM'Bώ >G"qBSmy* xCLOTٸ/oӾ\?4k_Iyl߫$K8|{eg$_T lBl{p@Nljַ[NF!MdU$3 | y|ڟҙ^ mзYp7[߭Ŗy pJ}Zu.7$Vh!0kjc6777jÝ]HK|œӰ5_έ,z?7)M74$ߎS;W'8׫ϑ ,~3l^:8Cm!& n39v.b|اjucjqPg&>}H8ڍ.Wyl֐j{mSOylWGk=Ə1a>/mrj;7k1=[TlH%􅞑4~_؜0_TOٶ3ڳhy|ݭЛ2[)mÃ!Ęa#={hb^+ YW(j^{^хtFEvF2}؛ƠSU&KΌ5eC H]iP=Eh`vb7=lbˑ3aFBGqF 札`,}ZW:\3c;53#]\G_@TI]jZlET3V&UkKֲܛe~-Ko!zu gsɍ·sM{sOO"25ޙȫ4μKY).PA,.VK4J;;58תMЄK١:wA{xC#XK9}뽔} ^ kWTh ߢ> u?`ospxIγ;v88üVˑÐ?F_x^V[S̅N > p6]Zn;]?j򗐃v`S_6s6wbt򚈋? w3g]9g*s?J:[t]{u^+ bt ;Zo`v%gK 2S37\c f^;sZµƎx<ݜp$(|'}򙩁s~Žώ'S-!*9sfe}1Lb$2#\<{u*4R>>lt\9=V,W=y?W ɇOnvh1gҔA:q餝Rfc |t1/LSqg_4Շrȑ#G9rȑ#Gdbں8IV&.DdJlҮ䏁ky } .׳!]VC_/})e "mڟ'hBN6nӦu{ڗhZ5>P( BP( BP( BP( BP( BP( BP( B_@#j˴B)@=UW_6DcHHDH%XIkUnn@iU@_5t}H"kUu=/VuKU݀\=Wꨧ8]'N& B8YcdSL 8n񘝵fr?nsv>1< V օul\9xƾN򤝛ɋ5\^1#Ln$I;9I{<SS|<]?}!N&2#bll t>ia[|:|JDN'l: ŭ V*ex)̧sr5Hg ݧΜ>wvh<=i#d";|Τb񇟔^7~q'Rd"?OouQ'QW):Y@*^ÈBlKҸ8GF|+?e zwi7Vo7Z%hA>oԻs;y T:!IQhvcWlex2Ñ!$fw.Sݺz$ZsHk4[kBC tLdi+^ɧ*+p0ȁ`xP}2D\\jhL@=N`4*hI7jѕZ׌2:2Hܧd-GqSN8w}f]!5zcM8f/u>Q߻N\dbQ@Πe̻g8<D]2n;H2{Z1d_E*1 R^O{_Iѽ:wm״Yլu<{aw)ަ2@)N&&N; \o"îE:_H{}Gj ~xѺoT wJىeހ}K.r"n?ӆ n ` ,3<`vO8"ddOW1 u'i4'xf3TqW,t6({1+nsRfkEf6͊*3ó`r|߰|ܧ}9ߒoۜgssϳ6<%O3kzjDtޡS١סu,uK>}UV*WeX*^E^hծȸĭȸ |9E ;W<5o66 nYl r؍rp1^ߝH˚`.`y"8w@q%F(Q$vZHA s,U!$鯶DmӪꇒI[ NT~O<3;3x=ۇR^Mʽ慁H@<6+|fSסt# sCD^q>yDVjDo+ oQ^sjO.*MkvINrg!5::6Fi>j`5Uzʮf^eodB8Iٷ=7ÄzBO׳/LY+{4C];5ўߍ뿊qL\q*)7ViAe7鿎??bL 9+ީ:/*}yw; gCFcC´y5FkfQ 6 I5(X8[G}MZa΂n@A*aUoa& pw} ߈EgើG--1`U8}P_ӷM`Z L^f&LxUg{m̋7GKPXNpxB8݀c¾m)nSezX&C|$=L#dti,uP_yI 4}^G$qtH}`\HC:JD\[mr%PLlzaJU0c@\属t~dW0UըO.?:NU/K7m S m 7jBx5yW6#1]-?2կLhTe߀k22_5f4n,/D ? F`͘{6nAV{ȻjG_; }@q_vakPWnGw^gxgПLm ?|2<soxK=ި5kM:mVijNcX]^JY`W7IX]'m71iad]¨cʳPiA{# >i[xGcC**^sg"{UJtY8 Wz.*qϩE2kړ\ZiUB~Z`ņ W$;^a$ W8 y:-B[Ɉ͎AF abK?!>mԗ"<4{@IQ4Wi%:4$@j*jR"R<]ѥ}+t2 7%]t6lP ?VzgrcH"7>❞xόbIļ12cLb,Odc~o.tAҽO ˊTo.q8[ L}*ֳwb٬t#c L݅5%cMX+?G F2+OHii:aGgw{djIU&2.tgZRx%Ӎ5*rrw{*=_0>!Hn"Z<3.D)2FeՠXe2,+В_'FQWdmKIJEV~*Vs]}'E%U/_D_BZ%;,:K\t3йعY@*RdJrڢjj2$PRDY Z0ZpdYn J9{t_p0) endstream endobj 59 0 obj <> endobj 60 0 obj <>stream H\͊@}݋&jݟ`k7ƙIbzOOМqnmw}7xii ǮotM tbmLO\E7o)wRTU(iu{9Ǣ6iSx?r> 9S*?]w)mHaq\t&uJE5*ToZo{Kn;XT ,-YYٙyɼD^37-9HO'ΙȴEbdtF8#h̆Ls9a4G#Lg36M`6M`6M`6M`6M`6an fY`VvViVfYiVfYiVfYT86MQx؛7`0 `0 `0 coތ؛7`3f48z3 fgoޜ~w~w~w~w~w\o8;O9;qc>4.CȻ+ 00' endstream endobj 64 0 obj <>stream H|y\TG5o^p "fqJ<ĠFjdW75*PH/DVxbf`&=j?y]@|0tm4(ta b\/EiFC P:/99vWno3_ȄzY@Ƥ1qO"q^Ps8G =rڈ^M  }4yӤ q᠆29fDj@VаbqPLr|/(] Ms"4۟:$>usә3Ir C/ϗ(7T? KVH[w!ֹ0*,gj3Hg˝OC5p?1ZBobhk YWտZ@`5kծcV&sHV^4KxM6-Z4Mv𷎟:%_v*G^_7'? q`RC K>bo=&cgNaSfM˞3csr͛ /Yl UHk߰q-[m߱s={?p=vSϜ-Ź.^|׮[m7nB) 15њuRE.eHS,itVzv_}y|T~,:e]D@a +8#xQOJbP+JSZlQ U)W^(Ncq1ۘoo|fmojcZi֘k7ks}s|&/ĤBըުP먡jCC5BMRǪ$5K.Vת]X=U""چ K0#<(dh)lLv9;"m9:\/*?|^Lsf8+\/K|ShL")TFIST*^ih&r#O3RuQB6E$CϕQDGlSJ c1͘c,`c4TUpi~˩95'pz)G-TWtBp*8}S|X75,Aee՚ƂGK)qwʈל~utX7'@[.< J9{m5H ӣ(89P.l\efjؽ^vO]ggl;|"rJʛeeKʦe+ܞAeqYdYP[[{[lm n}hge-Li=b]n]omomkmc &ky5wD.I%I\H4#ŕ-{^fL žE"Tr-{|[mߟn>|'BUi+;-7ɷXԃSnSRdbXUX?Lc'L\L"uX/kq %XoQN Gqgpps8Rb.<.?H D20H`bbҐxc120FTqx'I44$d8PAy4TIL:E hb O"oZBKh-dVZK먈Hh3~%BSi mmvU|ɏ?nGFP U,Kh?tcդZt6!*+n)d$(tN):Mg(BI5,9:O"vQ]G])/^ąR^y[ځWj^kyzyo-$m2omwNŻy}A>ćp c|OI>ŧ RmRԺdGCvg2:Y/{Ȟ|/eW_g+M?mwc?t5NV/_WMUu}e+w.e)6ދ@Q411f$F@JA@q'b EʲtTRl3_>?<|/Eė _k}WUy^WyzG|G:W|] u3]$s9zwt=CԳ=z? BH/%RL/Qke^Vz99999)&Yoџzޮ?;NKY{g܄S88388s)rsAtAt!F'cݰ;=>aq!8p#Gh|X]̅܌s nɭ|K598|B\q .eWJ\eys\ո\2q ũpn;w]sߩtjƩu:S@#19- N+H$H&1vJ֐㴁 yP͠\܎O>7Wm9 J5߸&Gx o  ?x<8=xbr<"^x5xo-xXUX5X ]FXe(c=>q2^&Dl92I&(IR %&O6)2UtA>L%e5SS%R%SJTJtʠLʢl%RSR3*bTRsjA-PkjCm=F$=%d>@uRB]u;|zPO_G|gE~ԟ@Di a4FH}d榹e*Rfn;殹gTjSiAzdYAvCs4F48@iH%z&=z^/5%~Mo - s`.̃,Ka,VjXkw+?7k4/fyLjG76|eafeb&]1G b\Gb*bLU]|%w[s1'i-()*w܇P UP-Oʧx;;!#n0jB=<!D ) dl/dؾTveO[cMȐc r|E&_o|9Y%ߖSc>6CΊl9WΗ "$fg+*Q$ur,ɝrB~)h<(<)ryIk򺬐d J(XYH5VJVi*Ce,o7{/yW[fa3|,2*ά7ffv=vC& k/0A$I`|f9a~X6Kv3ac)]®a{# {/{{ {~oO=k9[n d/+42?OrʜsNs޹\7:.nԕr.ˮqmƙZSw7Khe*ZFLydl:x7Mtd⦺infYn6us<7-p f|!>G(eL*0|oUWxR6 !Ȧ -鈠(k`@A@Ha#N ]@Aa3~ꯪWj.ZFqKw]  AX.Np4^pXJa ERECP,Arju(WJ,%P"@ޠ.ԕы2?QOzzQoC}UG))Ri A4P tYF4FHE5z,3p9BrhMI>}@i Mi4f`ʤ4JCCY4Q6ͧ>Tx{*=UǴ'76s,GxBK`WKZ.Q->Y>YSz|o޶߰D _kVJʡUC)Pu| W&,Jh;vNEKR`3}Moh~: !:LG(tNR1P)tʨ9TIUTM5TKuTOڭ6.P+5.%j;xm0Ҹ2nlR )r՘kp,~no@d!vfIZjVvbveGkMtSL[ڣmcE55ڐ147ϙ7Lkƴ5z;Ǝx{favhg {)4sC9bc9aNbSbJ)sڜ1eܜ5L9o*M65ԙz6v&C=ӞEtu:nNZVU*ΊsBJTQ+DV|'.qU$~uqCdN`.a*C2Pvd:V01!*y1F2CR5U9WjUfLd5EMa2\FH2S>a,a,gd(|Y-cd2A&d'CH=fvS/L bf==1=IޕwcBbF*FGXt*QXtN`&]QWO̙M&Jsǻ>!LMw*BE:Wyz^?u\7zެz,ʇL2Eõn%\Vont; CtS+NA[*knyS'j"y'8Wds`3ïQ_)zȃP˵/JpA ^ip@8e~^)^tng*,u]͠|͵$L8N#8%Nsm 7I|u A6?'4.orW'2g"t}Sj VIvG&t!=-JD죶@0sc| sz;.x DaQ c`lhk'-UK-2Cw{W \jCd9S 2uKcxTg}A4t?hA,e%@ϻ* x9JV>R, ><~&ёUbOGŬ<Ί l'ߒr>k,.p\Jd%q IפOG=okuRMg3@ IJ%2cpkGbC\8[aGC4ZOɬ`Ѭ8dzq>.ďpd<%Q>`F>?UqcX|99|Iw- {&LR%ZFRsQτ4j%Z"R&mZ*-ه]U䙻y3f7q(1Wauiox+nu?N|F-/+)\5zu[=~-ԒZ?2|AD~?wVo`߯R{=S`ʠ6:pb>ޮUU.j}즢QL϶EUbJ^» ZR|>vI-Ui+OsudgܟPL;i'\0m>TWic8:~-W.'Cc7Qx lKd ;@g"c/*^|[È.(!vY)&KȪx)k7yr+e5c Нrŗ%M.TA?uVzl=mzvRR+<`43#?GO?'GdjLxrUe||X3(aYh*)#jɆF7}hh+'R['忥]xs~+i=뤓jR0F>M sYm=Fm& (ku{A};JҐfZD]&ޣ0v#]? 3ːN{ |w5<ᄺ~@8Fsk+Ϻ)e/5jqO Y1{y ~ 'C j_yQvWut.eLWPoU "]c92 Yc 2u_j܇(qO YPP;cYu'.XiNb7 هr?=x+2uiA6,E=zyDk?@sEȅ~卯#x[t/mr>b5DW!_~==zvvoPwغk]ꞕ_\Qswu4|%UƢp Vί(/79w*YWeKǹ@ H«A1_xx,^8NDF9ZFbVclm<8:Ιe 8H.&M︽Nta~ zY-s/ <_ڍ4aۀU|kk:d8/jH{,eH7$&ɝ@!9bTj@= =A׊X"ӥ;P7x0"ӝ66 nvCUľȔ)K܎4붥0bPuii 4WI;mK+(X}^C?o,t "S`UWI6 Ft Cdқ!!w:"c8͵^ޗw=gf8^l|:!js8iiՑ-ԩP5) * !!*Vi*?,R}ξy~7d5{C(K arm aW0 ;EmvKNsv  ꀅ@/]XN|ȫ{hۣ! W)$/ /3 kJ*;22(aK\v /Ƶ!PXgtPX?FU!ubZנB4^ q7ބ,?O34ʀρc+0ރڱ,UBtunv0hE_Xb+AK]aW֛jZ_׸p&(xSrb@WcڬAQ}\A۴^0(O'&4%E2lfrsü n/Za67?;+Z(3ΐpoN/%ݎ»a:OXd4(h7AIJj}BgǎH{qY՚<ݵg\bT<x}O$3=[7٫5 W9Kd:;ŀ*yê0[ooo3~b_/1w)M샄^iRA2;Qi0.1d~+`hQdi ]EEj_g9je|VlÒ)aCIJJ-ϓLRP[{ݴ;O_~Y$5\!>#`)<3=q51Ci`݅WWDbb1Dp4<#퓂H2gRTE(.T`'8+;QIir2*5|Zp vI&XFm4*ը!yŽ=Jԝ/(qIotpPNܹS+[[jM7ZŊ?.0 0rچ?Qhia+4or]P4!E+ Ns'էӾÓE$?X1V-)߀R#W8㎋ ͠h d2h V<Sm!̇SIUTcJk]վAI3(?e2$74@# `_ /E^ve|?}7,&>/he '@[ 4Dԉm*%NHV8 EN@4v'*)_k/#}+vP.(eg Rt2 7an.'&?_!x+2kJklդ+3=ш>P4 {+Cp,vr;y3gw{&%扫ͱT%ձdÅ+1ӧl%51dWjJv*BjByMU_5aK5m%Z]дKvinۓCfy}I-)m\.n~6;B5T?:ң%dםQtrPF6sMą< vt$,sa<$L%x4r/l;m[_#xS,'pߟ>SUZ'{Fl,gipGnƅJpŅ9xinw8UǏ'F)X ( [ w?6[ۏ.|oj;xjt >Ŝ!c`ѳm<{iۍgOIv6UTc[O$llm{aa^Q{Kf> jX^u ՏX;ՎԟtW jhS<+26!P4LRbQ Li&I%[oW 42K#T&j 7im4-C`'O0W/>RW!- fɴCS@V_CbBG<\_6 /_^_׎; N !$7cMRT2貄"ФvȡbcT@Tn0ւ LAV mn"҉ˆ&c>>>y}:V-\ZI^uHBmMK; C-Ye**=MK:^RHֵbyo&uly3*7힀Ӻ :Yl{|QН,<㱥KE%TRy-œxK uޫF7TF"brM =f,JBwtBg0/ (/tVٳUY6-{ [DAꆎ־Ʌeë+_Ͻ跩s[ƹÔ P0(90`5ACrd.]CU3LbOL1D:#>޷ue< %ƿYMjE[HIspJGq:V JkI[ZkJӫbM&T 3">)C3гVR, {| :h 3ye:vp;:͍{D <0 Tt}ktm"6#g` 8&(CZ'1J ت|y2LFP1zU3օ4Ģ)0@y!^Bw&%S*#^pYqpp/L8l^qyŕƫrW` ]xh:9"r^E .ىrt۶WvtuE@ݶP:hX^Tϴxͽ⭱COAïd"KƆGL=ss|=Qߔ%>Gjmqfhk0؛pQ`3Ҭ(T&2d4ժhڌW* Iyփ]h=;&.8 UcdJKW4pQE y<B&| Zyvyzߋmm#_Zn?e9e]~o*|u!Ȫ\zTo'^̩PzÂOW%rOiؤ撚D L?ˆzZ$EH* _ y۹ՙwS$LOx4L%A\t+az^7?pk-L7O@ٮCƜ "\t KNǖRWT:k ]% $d QvQ7Txb ZBpވBt>00cNv? >兑D\~3'7Aoڕ~ |īǃ}}(^lN>~_yhj\ >qy.BE -ד3 $-b>ZdZffʾKm;[^n#:}F2&7p6x 02ԒU``qEFA1 $}N hDG ͬ`4Qq.hNTzBL}`L vPggk#/lvo,yy_NEq]-Mw{g_%!8%rdZ񬘀 ҄t%4q !,kQ'4pWT '!x)TXEi&m ,]I4i%a;Bgݝu{mݡ8A}D*b@sG^jO(a;&U#Ldw8~Oѝj1H9.M:",7YӤ.E|}8`?ufng:,,b5JS_FP&(U%WF@`T*zxg =cGs;=kv4`M/*Nx:f՗ƂgdǒFd&}pu2w 1r-1u[Ļi?Q|2ciQ_1_6'F\-وM MϨ0{PX -N'L؝BjES+ScLTΙRAi邠㧑5s^.,􋎢BR/[ZaVn BZ83V#-&he8a|+h5=Lv$}v±rEMGlbwu?W&\:~i./m]~xCw/?[xdVǓ#y6xR-`zIRJ%I RID ˀ$RPVDv QfAhz&ŰuWdIAbH+DH$ , tAܽc&bdÐ~rP_sKvw:+bW`nzzAQ9~ǡc%p#[4'-IOO.{.G,k7M7ͷ0',䷮[!Ed]* XфP~ڂ;bAfMI,x9%m?8]bfL62mN/Cs xqF?ñA?"H?a.f(ʼnoq&^v^P@Tevj!'uk?r8 Bzrt`"2 "R{#U ZW[P/[H']u{cAAF0&8V ''qȱ_vA6B 9Gkx+V1qbcW۳}{2>v'+Vi?v{zF^޳fGt<ݻEm}/~ DAبؾ]v abeԣt( b Ԡ~8~6\Z Q T'7u:ҙσmאCvԑ P2DPs( 1!s L]O75uYmZ#E$P'Ì {% eImAE6I`3CjK M ,"Z p~ Z¬>-̙9|fjPbo7ؾօ sivòon\Wtmx_ܟyo{{Sg~׽Z6M.H.$f< a1F#Ƣ <Q±${/"(_.Gb] ^E4|'1Y:LA|3p5qZj34Jz %AW _6~KfÒ%(9qz\033`]r+΅i },=hSCNUm'-sa?vTUUQUshuM},UKl*&e@Am:>ۉ}lߝ8\L tڒ@2,CG%:L*1ecS UP5ʆUncj ThРK{g`LO,~1{^ȥ6ĄQ_&Uf޺lDʵI~,5Gkh:Cei7if0`Q"!]w ႥȢH%;̢!(9dU\Aw8% `)h$n5 -oY9Č-M{=\|i\Ԧ]!6mɟ]=?܁*0;ygEIm|daכ[&:23eEU(.XZ 5&QVwKT//7}:$ӬS#w&B'!?diT^hK)WcV4De=-%1GA'8bw9˛5Xyl re;hmd4{*|Vv!;-;c=2_.}=!oDw[Fe߀]G{1z[8&A?eϣetY ݌ܔ.A*XC",nKAwBFt8$(dIsϭXׄ ~e%r:8Nw:]N y ΄N&fxw"nް2$;7N%~8 d[[qqClrJ Qhw?іSmLXN}F".V3rܨ.*vMpw9 k&R}tPN =tW.9WAXڣS]]a}So-<2ywƮ?S2L2Ɇl+ڳ!{2ikWT'HaSm ;Ҩ^W^ᕺAa/23g6_uSn[ބ_ ȓ$ u#!,77by:'9 |>V/' &DyO MsՅpon! @*>ߟ5B sʩp怴;>^e_XŬntl6 uϤ^pl;̅Uqő"򱄮ɒrinr9_ yؐ"]2f?L.geÏRn9+A˦)3Ӎ 473Wht{f6 9#vt5˒8`b=К 8GŨ UxB㾛,BWD+h(}VsU"^ukԚfquG9 ɀİZ W6AiABfШubJF:%79{@Ԧ'i#(@__Wg(")xdq̍"_o)J>rCWd&NB&dYxG"ӛZf8"i d?Y W1edޕ Fpkvɕ/Z|%OF>srg᷎u%g$st2}Xi_}W<6;V, o⹡q]rd`(ٽAo=r-Mz0H]մ#ڞq"N)Gqʤ$2鎑yǤ3F k ']m`CJv -H]ciJзh|1*+aX"S4Qk6鏸VDI U|!SatzSԽNRA K*-qa%1h#$bGjtQ}*-s2k-pfSo1 ޵sO UuSF>hNa[Xzb>_#fOI$=f=UbUd1oDefox:r8?"L2L9H"zb`,^ xrJm>P1{Y%g[ 0=g$@4'^M| AVXW# k!Mǁ;#0iE V1 ֻP Vfn ppJ7kwAn$剙N8T(&%N<= Z8 }Q/GW„лU^"K,{M}ӭݗA- tqk4UY}wqꏳsvrLM.mSU4fK TkvJRA-TtE2QI1HU**L52:vhٴw;+z}=<Bm@>@ðz!f| 'Cχ?/-f&Iˤ(wcU59PNv$^䬄 Xe%h "FQ`sJ0i!u|"/&OPg823hb*XG,|F~LJYxu,8VwUd*ZD-0Z jAQcQcşCtJh\Z.ݮ^kե@ .MZo`5%n1¿4Ծ90U#,`0/sc5Fgƴ^ʹ^wn=rp2Y9w4,dr FhM-ry|SH>sOC}woc#ѕO2hfo3#M6>E_jΨ>;6к7%b]IG aI#J3*GvQ"^#^H [__ c%Mϧla1;bzʃN}BlZ& wAfXPh3) ơo7Ȑ4(v6-|[8s7PgB=}_ *rHv"'XV葕$"9K[z??YD^ (|9vC:WqVnıf.QRɒU VO7.O'f$[ƨ`3*4/^xeim_;>-dFn,[-;,Z滱aNѩ*:P_C]j<]aGv;'pS V63ŁHDlFOQ1Ֆ`\4}߭ZVi-?\hNVW ׼d3n%)LZY?N*k@z);[IS)/g6GһjS~fU I! mԎhǵsZ F*nh^7S\5ؕ%T)2xP4Fҕ PZ Hgh77.zUCB!LRH79x(y&;B5PMd$[C,etR̐E Uª5@ `ƫ9'] 9룻ASylfxoxڰҬdlgXS74&5^O464Aal蚃o'>y#9uJrT.;(WAày;j6% RI RCD: м'BlO D1dO):,q(a}HpsyYUML@4PsZ͠ļ ܩܪ~zu^snl|RP >>t߱{#aoQq4 XΡ<-śmF~+٢n7۟+IޭCz-~ե|6c5Xzg̯տg} ŗ:e/WW;zDF)Hd8FuZsc]^;ܘD(&̘9cKEm(vd*?%xHD~E~S /Ga&;~ǝww>ߝ]lsH<1~b!*&ʄ$nFZڬ]4 PQp*1vMTZ&MZ콗:iRr|.)=k9rM3dN%7@ d{3zHIj"l@ C<24Ç'*B HY(Ra렎Irt-fS TG֌BPYnVsh}jd Dip:۔J>% w7 >H?sHDIS3YԳgo55:׋,Qڍ0p۔ ʹ i[2 ԘpXçŧ#{?P_z%v-4[#G+ʑrg ;BzRRmJ10"JQJM#.I|H˰MU(>2 #N%M-uiBM'iHSd(Gl{"ABŏH8R^W CJ\#ES1,2dE&o&Xl& Vx=Rh'"WVG5 0 Xg5krRi9ˁFj:'Ȣ 萉vPB" Xu: -Q*j.\MqG\α*CifnPLikcCAH9U 7/#^`r"15Y ?XӸ%`#\[vt`Dm,( W:;^r7dK; 󞷟9Ј;x‹,M'm,(֜Ak˷Vo ZxiqQ%}9ˎ#HvDy>waǵssqμ6pY6GLn {zPtQVW;ק*mosے۴Db/V`u{1, :\&=I)Hꥺ}I9NϾHvt0/W,LB|xXj_'|)Vp4Gebj$INlph1b un+⤠qH'2zafzy]}0QHFGbo\k.SjȊ3sHDL4tt@\8S糈3*F9QDf3$݋>6ewiq;JTx&kшâ#!UQijr>UH#plYg %k;_ `0aN|NSؖ" T˙|N|KyD{xrڌ8"@"8G6ȓxL юCt^T'wP~>"/~ Ӫ?];p?~Q*58F]c]GȂO^?@6ñW*vdN@ ) 8=pOxdO:n9ƟilNڰt@DȱԀ7^Шrâ@L[\W\[/jj~8aH8)0A>/۱"ѷn5q(V HSv6F[I$z̖* w}V">>P8F 4(U^F4r Lf5bcvT: ٹqR~k(@8*J㟳˩pykMprM &jC*q}(d-W|ZncͪyMLNƻp>fNįt!kRTM#`L^H̢Fb$ynD?#nd&"7mU3ʢ2ʸ2N/2_gwҐT.(Y997 ٍo$)=<[쥩Hrѕ\vs!XPOBE5Wi#8l09$LQW.R*<&hH3ey ~?+U\3߆c]`VZGO#/-(ZWwdA"T}Mu~.M6Ehhk$CI`,Bhq#D}>/b9~hC2woJ`mG|L2mZi8+b~_Am3?GQ߈$>bovv#Cݽ}CCāOW/Y/ǜ_7Bo^7enfYi6~R;MpWdHw2vXj?&Cd'Ӄōj[glv [%ÌXDjO\ee$yUf Nj& XP4d* ~OT٢ȋ 񌩔D,xX Vf~+FJ׌ӫ+yMe*ܰ-_5[') RYHXIAhm[1&a;dd4E'X\[}Y0uiNٙq؍qgʛ\w)|.n?ƥ`]YUk.ƯJnĂ7mTXǃ@8^`mq0/S0&$PIE6H@64iU 4#2,&z(zP?h=f1!c+X13"hMrY&Zi.^\0Fa{3OePfl=$=}{$!%XCcSK^- mZs@N`N)WAz 4Wwa;T]C՝!iu"c0A鐕D@vnA4ʈ+#mRA 8LLh)=UB RzLs` L)g $Hn,/82z-Ym`Yf%GW6Xj仟r-ub`V0W73RTr$gs^ycݕڢ+2|;B5TꦂVEeF$ͤwE~7m_]uStϽ[Uj0yn "D Oj.[K$W;.L*ΧkԖ1W+v2@4Eh+rHJ%H|QTjqhg0@A)h# L[FV2Juk70Tve:$1c!Q-R9nL62wow~Zag_R'EVW?N!t rDʦ6 K1uHuÉTGi8YvmL;_-Ri!+3>?3h H I{eKL Qyև[(Jp{Q}m컸^?h?l/6FnE/ aeH-(2L*o %'|^cIM`cyxOObt9{""pK((@;1H4 jt_ڔVnhڲ>enNSv{SIAkX+"#jCYT@chMZDN:7c:\7ŬwÈ8µqY"+O%x~iܒadq+A,yе+DP}5`~ЄU IIs]R.T*6FFxruSX<ߞulhޡNkbhXhI&%L7X_%MyO0ywz>o?c] w1M\Θ o{#<Էd¨_Y&N$ђ&"!B, :U,5Fe- ;?Q {) %_Y H ,4kx%e=M/BD`YT lbBa~F-*6@C?m !fk57qfK`@LX ȄHҥIQ5Q0=k?e+͒g͢ SnC!n o11\amn~KĆyS oQ 9Α7+Bk7z}}PQa`x< a$h"(ĔI?k^/5&h{?ZsW ge".~nE\$=o]̰9 F^'P+wxhy (,8ySKy3T@!n+>MzZ\YnƞjM_.r'̽M;ykpߞ{~K |烏Ou6qw?r;;q8qpJBJ&S&tUlQu[DvSGCPSN[YFZ*N6&M)ҳ{wyn@2\8uHF0,) l(G`V0TU$E$v8fC?Tw•XԘZl67L1+A4/-~% t@8$o%F"9 iDY$24o"U,El :YV V Fv&Y.KL?/M|0SW-zGЈ*1{C~glV|+Ӽy)!aρ: (Yݬ?"N /')'~!^rG7qj#MZޕ~-J5 IxʷY-}AarP( Ie ]Y#Macue #iYƙe{7 6'L.rlN- YnuM2Вk'3,o0"en|}=&;.):M)QAa%tޠ"}MMhi4l2A"dr[2R ti&H_zWǙ`/YEaUb.(<y6g@h@\lAE9T}.%Yo>4H '&ܜ<Y:k9QE|nN~*z\HBlR@'5UUoN%q"ܝ Vx=romo\j#-n8=-c(/ˢm|Dbՙ{WYB\nԑ[UEoZt걨;G]?^c5FeNpsHE°*|CU=?ZfjA3?JE7ZděmpԶ! .OwJ9HrVnX>;??0P{:i&ٽH$uP8c]-L;Ng˷n,G~IlRjxj@@ b)pdXa4e>yv*;z~ڙ邹)׾~g\Q] J,Im9rpއ8j8. b-ZiYދ5l-7}#z)J|fa(1i%t5jX_m6FRp Cרy,.`j8P|BAЌ8Ӊ;+Ű{f/NxEHEp*J=xOc~ 5zI*)|$5MT-󔝅R*m"x Wʊ>-.PmXk 8sKOq_|,_2 T@ƀ&~4THYss 0Oиk&x-EqqkoXJz=bDGF%LOtIK2]jtY:]a7[4A5rg7ȱ|Z2En&( lmKԽ`S:#%:݀3f{^]XUȒSE_%Gt|.isI|(璙'ةiOIeO0Fɣ< G˓T3a\~!]7<_{s~J0swj ~ԥZ3|bC}~. )C 5P|X\bfH.<_ޛhyOLg=RDapA 1-h*E>i]{>3`B<GΞ8Q'GǾzhG@g׫YTc; !sO|U32?N@4zW4E4[R%vmmm"*yʏHҧAWz"qU:'ACO=STrJ2\$?La] N+^׺ ܱv6qq~b>\?cB̟]҂CI$ QjVUQŤ^T{BVc *xQib/xUi-*ulk 2]:ԁ,{V ԨܠQe #a6LT]Pjxp +"I[@c ĺNϝmNGSFe'2.Fa(UMuLeUyd)Atuu]BHR1<'&ǘzӹ8>2SQ%uEEو̈R YEDcSF&*LlFf "_MeBu 3hgg$1ZJVQi.UڥH vxʳ"B|L:wLe&ibhU/}to,~jcg4++NwgMwga9˕2+ Ʌ5?Zw]j هskvܦiZ.§5Q2tb7f yq^ *e)6> pӁS5~s x/)}(Zh9;nJҘUrC<3%잮㯛$9s3HH2魘awh6f`Xj  M}btUs<д9xO_QА's5uc hVkmw3\*Ѓ_:G~Mo|#Gv[`_0̆{(enVL4#lOE#tkFr(5jZKheq%Ft F^>m쓌bݜ0vH&Xt.TM_WjlI[x h]"[*")ceVgr}suOCĿW s`-NHIP-iEdcNI0 ^. iq]v;A]3;JA,+gkӹ`ŞN$N;)1UKPQ +jU^ڑnjJ@SiVh6f{w~{tRՃg}or@ ©vOs u`xξ\=YʇSnO݃C|Zm>7)1]W= ҈Y8H'FЗ3#vxO6؉ wO8˿@F-v+esԺ$@!DD7$2TD")!PdT+j`< - NW-F"bq 袺сE2:h"qy=Kz2w8Iz^ @ G[#G6@[(K/iإP"aƸ͌PG#ktE@ Q{>x,d bd,,v̡T@f JS`&pZ[%")FݲMo0dD]#Y1GP9 s(=H.V%斖]IZmC1cX0 aX1V gx @.0@ H@v]>F `&$,jYmAkgg·Z ʋqӢ'_N:D@ԉ M 5FYgoUOkˑӞv\?Oܱn>:;uc݇Wϼ֎+";΁E&Sn.aQbJSzhCFaSi$u=q^?_Cz  4!*˱("d|1MG1iNCxA_Y OSA׺HJ9 0-;ҽZŢ0h$o:G1^l $t{Tgȣb>xr 5_>>lߛνl}w;M{͘ZnKЈz ]56, *bm iLtdsA"^TT?GU(4UP5yNW Hw{=|RV:똧1WUhQtӞiT]m`@bh5h:Z`({rf!>`̮ڇCQx{CѡZcdj玁J(w4yڸ!cq*2; JpIB-P$զNS:nZUh3ڊv^k[nc=muQŸRXfW+h07rȪ *QxFU0.vm(&6D `jy*@WpJ'ҽEKj ǭaj;O 7[8٧f^5Z몸و%X]r`$Dr;1TN뭣zB\)_&r >Hh K։<ٻ]> ?Y'D5 e!h8dch ўWi3Uh?"> gɁ#zN|{A`b ʚރl%m"IN۴I%@ɋ `)n]nT7$ ius5κwX!3[6m~YmzB-y 3?$_+xۺb]Lt$w0;;_)`.ʤ1r#+.Yzn@ NcB#L+> 4 @ N~MI?Kx7A$Xt56)5ۺ{j"6n:w@bl*b<咺 xQW k!EM/\I z<%|L.M}mE"}fc)-Z Pq!ak2>߃/M_1gN}>'\ ;ЮO2ȩj&{~??R^= mkx %6p5l8qeC+H8G*Wan,!$şBH,1Ǎic )D(k066ty\ \'Ĝ 1c:1E1_8?V5o޴; c*Sū̗}k&PrE9uL7 y؎Qa, 9lD07e&eEQA[]PqLe՗W'/,d T LJ3.mU_m6O6MX#M.z&AU1>3)e?niD~яs&]˸}WBD1L*i/G> ~+0*=&BƓbojC &f!uECJEL3F TcG76]U/]onXfé@t.'݋pC/=ۇN9S0}fx4~.[jC+W`WA\VCjxu"S(**H2 P f63YgF@>+tV5 /`_$ߎ.$Bq}}2{7sUtB.HØD9J;"%;BN:KikD' R{M6?9bx>wlGyexl>'&x9Qx<;0w$͍xYaRL骦&Øo.޽FÎe N(~"yw: [`0`#J Bcf-,c^m »@]d} M ĂzW MєvǺJ\_"&_Dxj}4*^tV?PZJrIi !?PȨ!#J)o6;JZP]vR&e3Et^)ĭL`2#mOt F=n y躁DYU1_<߹=)d=IƟwIco'Z5_w2[=3fJOGq8_d 7C#5)I)uܿ'Jl6X)f7"J0]y40jqc;;].\-nrBs97x%R0#Ma!?dh~|qxL2F 0 VoR kT| wJ%ɶ6Q*aNHĐ\Ml ό^#1AЅi eo4e@yp<95PBMϔT I#2݀fFaxxZ|Z 802ȶE&AOETTKQ UDN`#-% Br$FH&d _}WjnpfW}ǢD֎lΙ^Hվ;߾==4>{OGfȎh,[ec,ϱ,I[;+Vk}^fFmbj±:ò9%0brP$V4a\|殬. dYa嫪{|jLiyˉTP 7(Ք:g!eHݧ`~\`Owz{I\g9e^}C[қݷi=,owN̸8<܉݉|'"g 4A 1~R7;sJM}{O MrS97 UhYedJ72ĉȖ,cYN״@ ~?P@QAM7!+pg.eu v V.2!ϲim Aިuig8̇kn ݨ0 ǹܟåZhm*r_k8:6:\N] ͭ-pʄHMκ:v0-8'qXIjxC(IV(.9hYbApl(,˶l;IGX>n,&;oZFw#Hw=Q4bf'|e(ȫkkW%_{K^YK S0~Az knɮEލ+"& NXrÿ[B%괉LR'+l8h}TX%/O"_"1Sj6C4m*h~|l~YJԳrƎfPsV*Y5Ké€}zc {w2Igm_撰h.:77͛J9K`ܟd͐:A|JxJ <;ſ$L*ST~Ҝ99A ϋ~RPGH22TdY5B]e)f`B *Nui2laXPFj13BEu$9Ta Ce,L"W!5 ƃ*Hge =G~E[(8I8.ʵ&u/ Ƌ{zeDEUzKO (5KH,* q1 yVâ-gسvy R3(5:\ "\鮸!h#ֺ_WV{ lf! ಲ6m(tpؐ3U) {cÙgr*ssсSYϬ8+ʳʫqAz3t-QB-u\^18q`=\4H l?y@8bz4j @h x]1}'{YlR<ӓ?d<Th!&% ]i494,#dEۖONYVjftNW2+'y׾ HY{vjNR{.%T{&&^P;T*SꗤPL\G'`񭧩 \{s^8E(d6ȱƜvI%[vvңkh7NՈh@"ϕQt'ё +>no~ wBUNywF _]Z9D)2%>υB.U;'R((;~< Y(  Je >AHQthC}?u!WwG$ ȝɝvB MRް4 JTe51cmDl>E\ȵ9]wwį ҹAePCLk:qBTJPx{lJɖ˲Eؽ~`oѡ v?Z+8eIH#W=>$y׊ޕIVY$kUk,ٗDmh뽯;#t"6@#)ST,m,_$Hǭ11DB?sVJjg*~2~is>s Ѯ̅4ƅ;߽{= erc1h 9CCgEtaܗ{PT{5VQPtqc Yy(tU4McŨ3F8FSit:1ց6L4I1}1ITMZh:n{v%vww=KjlO+WKcfOkθ/Ff1b򍭠A c$$%*Z4vV>%6IK,ndCbpqRH#Øl,0vqX=yAܱoh*RL}xy|B?Kϟ+'=U"8龷뗬?v7B2`  EJQiDԉ?Q O #K=F, G<2 BK / qx̝? G[YSbOƏ_rrf_ާcxJ~SIޜ6[gʵW.%qHzR;֙xoz[M_QvzWvŅEYU 55v+/l\_4.Nd#u5qA/ވ\N9˞nK6|A3mT_vݖۿv̗! 2KE;]ShFKv*7T}@:۴eτlS$^ L0<4 cA=^BRm>}S?KA%ʣ4NkQ(s 4d0 c\Wy,P m buΐU-ޫ9ʫGw!}u 4נ\"0g5rʅ8(ew`|t\~'*w# y,Lxe'P\7Y>K_}=WcB 'a]vjOlyW{}UbyцJ>^m! %AIxWiI/n"d#Ǽ~ M~qޔ`L9!%jP lSyFqU8v2aR~߻RׁWѷ4FXWp;F!m l!Ͽ]2Ă<} `ݡ=ֱͰm}mH=I{lٰ|5umNfm2c= 6ی%gO9ZOߖ>ȶ"SYbT fgmIC#%-}?@&{ur77MHS,-NPdgϵ芺T['.ww팭[Y:qnvH٭&k݊wWu]*Q:},о?A;hѻMS9GdD!,g(M [-9`77rՋ)Ow.bl wMB餭4Qt-62>~; mIJ^>5/kA HĹ$csevr/B3NCv.%Sʹ/c'w. P.k5.#øoflfyxyXM1ϩ.eqV.sһhDuQM08jy4F?0m{)_whZ&a#~4D1Z.7MƠ2Gs>8aJ#)T9$1cA9++.w(){vr.Ƿ>9w% ֲy(ZSs{Ab`Yssi̐6)dwe}ʩ%^g^hg)SSqGJE,G~2m:u4o|^G -gPJ6}x,]AuӔQ _a9>:|섽GIm{p_z?' ՋTY΢2Pnw4JE>X^%Ջ('}X_ EjP\¸ [y]Xc͘T(ޡoN.Fi+!*U~LMmj2r 3-ĻKAo:yisϯRح~inmV,hLod~՚Owgo*3r#_sB /!'h^MKh }+s{k"~{ﬗ pU׽q BI"-D 4S >ڎ0Z:#FV:8>~k}7}c}^GQfAxjsR} amh[o?9^V==_FvCNR]#.х5`3YOv&hbՔUzgՏmVmuD6OsjgկX4sx+˸Fy#3&>?j"殳ؓGLBy5y#=m)b?rZ[;^r.5G~:2?Fw߰LW⹸r.&Ggc-Gy>"{QRSJ\v{ӹ}-uG1]t?"=3X;w}Ec?!~Λ-F g 1n7gY[d ejɰPÞXCp;rwi;ײ߷ύ>dL/0w}k{2ɧD >s@Ljϑ` < ﮓ{ }zVӦj8oI9Yc:/ bh;\4'.檺T&e\ Kw,v gĥ#N>6y#WΖ2l;F9w2~blJNM9(ũ5R*M8KU~~|e9UnsX[s\\9o/u&idK6>Hw ZȹzGB]SHS*&k֜ݮqܗh.&w YEpHjV~ZCtesL)6Xjyʶ6񅵥1_ɑR=΀* U|l@F}ˁw<#f0Hλ4Rgip-];~ ى ?3G9 OgTwDSMεċp}L[;a/kr+9;KN/Y*F(t2F$&HI$/!N3gkgh?x)VrlI p}. '9:_{eFߊyf?"}mQ]>H{)1#q諶"jKqW;5Sv]8ԏ8~t7nq{>}u=ħwi` z%"h7l/&\ ӆ;op}y} 69Mr<gVcamwgwzvy;~; vŐ; | ?|N.W rsƁк皘+亜\_HNL?'~下E|&~O( b_B)ʹ_x_@LfS&nj5q[%gh\br*6[+7W,#E26>)UT{dPCI&o.I9-z'wqzC(tm65zVk%!o쾁2М[Fs.QQ_$ES?'3VJ*YSğ-_orSuv h168C5/9U^;iYշ6Q鏯uz\D:*CSN3lGQ'kTx:*nO)(X$Mޯ]K. д>#ǚ4G{w_\ 5:5,mgl`и_2ti}΢HDXCk,4.g7UCHka^Wؗz%4d9izo~OpG^0IāmĨ;ZnˋV5XNߣd┣Mwlzؖ!ͷ]2`O< Γ2C.'^`މr{!;V(7ga/mc4$lr 0ܙA Va!4N\K;K:(1ԡɼr-~0ĹVʐ}p?g}/y+hQ5Ӱ`7m{#,~!C2k=_+{2(yΔ )[3GR% ~J,6ɇ֙gn[P8HBG_-O&Z+# L=ga%>g܃09g{AR@ E$!ABx ʻPZ 2TQj;&X axZV|"3ulAEFo{nЦxgY{>묽ϷU~OOWY)3Ns vdMOBy&ieSQ ́# CTlu! *V@oF6%a#6/ yR:ڪ%T7HLZJS&HTmMs׸' o)險8>v5kPSk1YxL%4%Gq:~f&vdr`q GX7KRu3Rmj rf`z'i3MzQ{`~>.հ\ tFS9qjO%JĿW[2I- by> T%RSi`Th\s2u?Htr?7ýș'ydsT]lyHk'qN_W/jXGּ }?GQSn |t |i#9-;z)ɵs=+}yw&Z=`MKzYvw}t snz{ۘW4(fC<֢A˼x=+NHg]PO$O2c,%33i|䀡- X;gƢkܓe,sN68^(`A%~ nYjڵU ;mj~ik,Sk4H-m)''\'oSxyX6ִ}o7Q!;=ӌD4_gFHy^3 GW \kgH"o4T㑷I:_h(9~qh3De[伾^#m_dk'_dDpUN63xeB/D{6z-q"{$X7:66&%MlA~ҢA㴗EHuqau+n[2y##ZBl:T3Oh=gd&μ.YwTs=FQ~2Mdos3F㦌uYU2.sIVP_,~&Y| ׂz)o𦒷ׂNzv.ujoIvOW(5zUB{ &W3BC©I(S /5yROn><7~1YB<6xS.VИH" | |U kyk pl}o'jFdonTf}*7=)R }r)!M:48&ڌvw%m (cY`00EН&)&n!i-GO%uE2kV ]* lM"Z-c<9BOj2)ySV{֞5}e*g+þSbU2{QUx[eMD>rB>&BSs9(}q=G)# _wrGf8Úvy#ϊRFE[҂(p8e#p)Ag>!9yܲ}v,;6_sRcyyv_>mݿt6 X>,?^$]5.vh#2AvԚ?s8 ⩘>HETN)> ~Guq{n^6d/BK+В /PBbqf,nw7 2Xa*ĊcewhkS>c+8:ŖZd3~$8uF3gw~ysޟ{qDžq%ʝ[h-Z%ꇥX#1=+G|E<΋+<+zyA9ePN|dJX>G}̥yHs ky9^a_Aι;Y0%~)wa<\PۉQ9/wRE>73I~yr3F{v.&ˌ~_X~$=kʋ}0 '5})L$o\n :I_MU+Ub;ψVoP5 91sƙX_֮*hATGkb4{ŮYVw"qA|6~)ol㭓7YO@dr,w}|M,m!KT\^hR U┊d]' e< ZE٫sjQAs㱧xOB=z+g.os}UlDJLZT)aEFb/n5 n ﳇy}U4c4^ڍ?υ v|{zC@&O۸AF8nׁ׀m=4QS8vG|9h4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4c(kqrypƒ\?d#~9" Kue bW%4@{XըcMӶSHEi6!U&h0@K=qYw?1o}gYbbsbXLz"jg]8#^ZzhcrbMa-ӭ|a.Hk@yט'fT4+s{mZ!99IU2R5,qLJM{FuMeO"x)"̖IzZjcbvS_W@R\EZoEK̎lEce%D EL$bf۬PY\du%5nE;duXʌĶf0L6~Y-ŒZ=Mh0um'j6rpҌ|Xl wE@ĴGd5DТN  Y 3%a hZf&-˴P Y`" TcT I֭n_?#g%[@mCKG+ILr3@׌uPψ3b59?pb΋Ӣ XC=-}D䣶Ox8f/DxCT+Wwxմ+|A\-j+Hz'ąվ()cY1Sqy銙\V>}wN[;/qsۗ2]Hbd1ôT<+l؇rʯ+yr3WQ~y)oS[WP~ӖO> &U-D2]Xnz"'w S)"jc>ʾӳg4}o.azn ,C3:C3$ExI2=IKLO0ӽdLxg5]&ےY[覫DwfzodPnD[ʺ*2EjefT$kKD;S%wU܅ޗz壡;#ƈ˨_({UЖn2sc#cGDzH%WI)6NL;99MW]lwc&6Yn\{&QB"xذM ,)BnUBUUTE6Tv6jx"m>PBj}(T6ER3s̽  tA K<2zTyyЇFx1]~AuK # # ~Nj"wA}6mLDAMMMfn &V7}◺z]"FVd@<"$Ax"߳`Vq3˘wg`xY'- ^3>ß#uf@(ܔ{3`X<>CE|.H中m[Ȇ x7UCɐ7U ӂ[~~~{VH=G@RZ[RC/(ѤoEOڽQT{;j_~-4ig~[~˴CLaZR(͂9ӏ/AF?&idƪV?߮uS:ˮOݖ;,yx^~D]cĢ&/]$׿o \s2$>-7~UtF7H\TY7~Gn%k=͒k1"q1%>zg%ؽ7{y*um0[(S r5$7CH 1fb HbхU]$(;_5>qOtϱc~ s岛*5/oZ˖UDg\dZ^fc!sճV;{a?3vu> M n6`-=f"l[(f7Ʒ3pҾʇ҉ ӨP.?sUN|l}S#}]n_/[6!Q]6URb:%č!3?%J=SrVӔ%)'V;;bYGZBh9arשf7wPqfns|f1=qc& F /'‰kٓ~{tc?›R᜻6N8_]y;9"&2+$7t<+CѥIȈ -ˈNl@Ȱ^L5>c\-(\C@&m&-"W˰0jɂOРH\CD\T1MH&TzL*f/< fm8yb:&͋:>Ҵ4X uBALFoˌ^~!8T恈#o){q1vHet 1529iwtoZ~Biך>!y^+keyy{^OPTp.Ilbs4-Ȯh߯@,1RP{=Cؤ<w +|[^k'-y1[*Jx)lpٳo$Xqb:O0g`Bka3aLsAcl$hMy:c fV6)#ߛC74aM[3֬hykM]*>ꋺsmkV.LZ /oNDJ]K??Co yZe&w yP.^F0egX xeY(woDTleH)* r^Qb`2p" @g G V5*OI@CR4/+zsI]<@70 xɯ>]Y`{v=~1ͯA>Ɵaks{׎*kvxf3լ úd\WS+w]"y%RQL1ũ1PvJ }|Z*R`u@$%ޭ%_` endstream endobj 36 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>> endobj 37 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>> endobj 38 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 3/Type/Page>> endobj 39 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 4/Type/Page>> endobj 72 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (reference to the IDEA Amendments of 1991 ---)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (and then Congress performed an about face and turned Section 2164\(f\))Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm (\(2\) into a nullity by repealing Public Law 81-874. )Tj 20.163 0 Td (In light of Section 2164\(f\)\(2\)'s reference to the IDEA Amendments of\ )Tj -20.163 -1.125 Td (1991 and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Section 2164\(b\)\(2\)'s comparability language, the Board concludes the\ repeal of Public Law 81-874 was)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (merely an act of legislative housekeeping to eliminate a statutory provi\ sion rendered superfluous)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (in light of the IDEA)Tj T* (Amendments of 1991.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Although the repeal of Public Law 81-874 did not eliminate the comparabi\ lity standard from Section 2164, it does not)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (follow that DDESS must, as a matter of law, comply with state law requir\ ements. )Tj 32.854 0 Td (As discussed earlier, Section 6 of)Tj -32.854 -1.125 Td (Public Law 81-874 did not provide a clear, unequivocal statutory require\ ment that schools operated under the authority)Tj T* (of Section 6 must comply with state law)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (requirements. )Tj 22.051 0 Td (Its incorporation into subsequent federal statutes does not)Tj -22.051 -1.125 Td (transform it into such a clear, unequivocal statutory requirement.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (2. )Tj (Whether the Hearing Officer erred by finding that the Child was denied a\ FAPE)Tj ET 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 28 595.5 cm 0 0 m 384.211 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 412.2109 596.25 Tm (. )Tj (Apart from evaluating DDESS')Tj -33.018 -1.125 Td (actions under North Carolina law, the Hearing Officer found, in the alte\ rnative, that)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (DDESS failed to meet its statutory)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (obligation to provide the Child with a FAPE under the standard enunciate\ d in )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 31.244 0 Td (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson)Tj -31.244 -1.125 Td (Central School District v. Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 13.47 0 Td (, 458 U.S.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (176 \(1982\). )Tj (The Hearing Officer made several findings that are relevant to)Tj -13.47 -1.125 Td (this issue. )Tj (Specifically, the Hearing Officer found: \(A\) DDESS did not provide the\ Child with a FAPE for the 1994-)Tj T* (1995 and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1995-1996 school years; \(B\) the May 1996 IEP was inadequate because it\ essentially proposed a repetition of)Tj T* (earlier IEPs; \(C\) DDESS failed to promptly evaluate the Child for defi\ cits that require)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (occupational therapy; \(D\) the)Tj T* (April 21, 1997 IEP proposed by DDESS was not adequate, and \(E\) Lovaas \ therapy provided to the Child at home after)Tj T* (August 1996 was a proper and appropriate)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (placement.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (\(A\) )Tj (Denial of FAPE for school years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 35.6582 462 cm 0 0 m 287.285 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 322.9434 462.75 Tm (. )Tj (DDESS challenges the Hearing Officer's finding that it)Tj -25.579 -1.125 Td (did not provide the Child with a FAPE during the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996\ )Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (school years. )Tj 36.385 0 Td (For the reasons that follow,)Tj -36.385 -1.125 Td (the )Tj (Board concludes it need not address the various arguments made by DDESS \ in support of this contention.)Tj T* (The petition submitted by the Child's mother \(Correspondence Volume I, \ Tab 1\) made a general claim that the Child)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (had not been provided a FAPE and that his "educational gains were minima\ l" during)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (the period October 1994-July)Tj T* (1996. )Tj (Significantly, during the proceedings below the parents did not seek any\ relief in connection with the alleged)Tj T* (denial of a FAPE during the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (school years. )Tj 27.829 0 Td (Rather, the parents sought reimbursement for)Tj -27.829 -1.125 Td (expenses incurred beginning in August 1996, as well as a ruling that DDE\ SS should either provide continued Lovaas)Tj T* (therapy for the Child or)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (be financially responsible for providing such therapy. )Tj 31.353 0 Td (Since the parents sought no relief in)Tj -31.353 -1.125 Td (connection with the alleged denial of a FAPE during school years 1994-19\ 95 and 1995-1996, no legally useful)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (purpose)Tj T* (was served by the Hearing Officer addressing the issue of whether the Ch\ ild was denied a FAPE for those school years.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The authority "to manage the proceedings and conduct the hearing" \(32 C\ .F.R. Part 80, Appendix C, Section D.1.h.\),)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (imposes on a Hearing Officer the obligation to ensure the prompt and tim\ ely)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (resolution of the issues raised in a due)Tj T* (process hearing. )Tj (To satisfy that obligation, the Hearing Officer should endeavor to avoid\ distractions and diversions)Tj T* (from matters relevant and material to the fair)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (and expeditious resolution of the case. )Tj 33.793 0 Td (Therefore, even if the parties wish)Tj -33.793 -1.125 Td (to litigate moot issues, the Hearing Officer should, as a matter of judi\ cial economy and the prompt resolution of special)Tj T* (education cases, decline to permit the parties to do so. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 21.827 0 Td (Cf. Hunger v. Leininger)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 9.583 0 Td (, 15 F.3d 664, 669 \(7th Cir. 1994\)\(trial)Tj -31.409 -1.125 Td (court not required to conduct a trial when there is no genuine issue of \ material fact)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (even though neither party notices)Tj T* (absence of any triable issue\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 11.829 0 Td (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.72 0 Td (, 115 S.Ct. 123 \(1994\).)Tj -16.549 -2.125 Td (\(B\) )Tj (Adequacy of May 1996 IEP)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 34.9961 169.5 cm 0 0 m 134.637 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 169.6328 170.25 Tm (. )Tj (Nothing in DDESS' appeal brief can be fairly construed as raising, expre\ ssly or by fair)Tj -12.803 -1.125 Td (implication, a challenge to the Hearing Officer's finding that the May 1\ 996 IEP)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (was inadequate. )Tj 38.585 0 Td (As noted earlier, there)Tj -38.585 -1.125 Td (is no presumption of error below. )Tj 13.636 0 Td (Accordingly, the Board will not disturb the Hearing Officer's unchalleng\ ed finding)Tj -13.636 -1.125 Td (that the May 1996 IEP was inadequate.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (\(C\) )Tj (Evaluation of Child)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 34.9961 103.5 cm 0 0 m 94.652 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 129.6484 104.25 Tm (. )Tj (The Hearing Officer found DDESS failed to promptly evaluate the Child fo\ r deficits that might)Tj -9.471 -1.125 Td (require occupational therapy, in violation of 32 C.F.R. Part 80, Appendi\ x B,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Paragraph B.7. )Tj 36.938 0 Td (The Hearing Officer then)Tj -36.938 -1.125 Td (apparently concluded this violation constituted a failure )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 22.521 0 Td (per se)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( to provide the Child with a FAPE \(Decision at p. 21\).)Tj -22.521 -1.125 Td (DDESS contends this finding is not)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (supported by the record evidence and contends, in the alternative, that \ even if there)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (was a violation by DDESS, there is no record evidence that it caused the\ Child any loss of educational opportunity.)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 67 0 obj <> endobj 73 0 obj <> endobj 74 0 obj <>stream H\n@~9&`t'D 8쏖0@,́)J,{j.1fqharǮoc wϖkfͿ͹<-.S8U)ú16Į??q OnV+׆c Vspiצt{Jk6WK4C.c݄XUY=}VY}|1 XKb%+ސ7-y ~#iӪ\Μ. rdf~ ~!$r9)%Xf _8`^{ %^kJ~sv g.]0g}z:{8{:{8{:{8{:{8{:{8{:{8{y);QtW+|E2_W+N(;QtAуE=({PAуCFglt68 Fglt68 Fgt/1H}c:^NTׇS?K 0a l endstream endobj 75 0 obj <>stream H|XTgv΅t][`I4$D@DDذ#ł"b^v]bY{}s9s~@h @eU[HXLhl~9l|F#w~Yd찘F4N0,zbd̥^$$c;OwTL\|V,ѣBq+sX෱<_3*4&IgcGu;xɶ;6"vS}k D0%/FlTP$0AI8@`^[gj!kq`AYؾ"*;g؄"b -$&ًJz8:97lٸIf*꼼e[lC6m۵ѯS.]wQ@^qO>lח_o C#"E 12:f1c8~BI?@KGGGˠ54l5j7EDgxV֝l([ɛh%r鴚J9 0Hf BP!ZUQ:A~!yJC 푊+MJHM&C96XxshS A8dwJ8kCw"#84xtdCjS[nV3`mWq˯DC~:^sJ %Wv!vvC.>U}r#e-dX:Y:Z|--,m-m,ZZ[ZYZX[U=dG JOUszA/~W@6fLJYrwUkTMR 2`ccLdJC92'\+scx57(vf~̺gYzެYU&vEH|,O_ŧ3te2I9C9SLQ*Ӕ9 }sȂAub.80 ܝ;.-R]#@pkNR$4/qηNFIn[VMn;NK{^OAsSr.<*<)OyF(?;+Usѹ.K-s /K"꺆kںnƺnnV7GAj0%!jjF1jlZƫ *D0&IjPST5MMwsn[6n~_׺;jڭjگ::N؞mkf4QN^^< qMkV GITQ>Â]c͆ӱe_pz9g,qv'ss+In nƻ \ s.&I8s .A\Ksw]J.7,&ܔqsn-N+znmܑ;qg]["w#HsEOŽ~ܟ@<%&ĘXgy(Ȃv (oȁȅD^WQQQEbDq@IJ ʢʣ`TD%TFTE5TG D-FE=GC4Bc4AS4Cs@KBkA[Q] [wi:Φjzcꂺ."s9uq]BW={=@;7l$MF?0C0 (8 ab!1`&#S00300ۙ9y2,"D" C,A4b8#HR,r|XUX5XuX ؈M،-؊m؎fY؅㺮^~AcDk6s✧i\DQKDc}"Tflfnvfm條ngؙ撹l}f9`Yvcyv]`<#</o9d#樹in掹k枹j憿ȏtNQb~'~_/W+Uj_7Mf71bR!Mfw+OgUЙ(3}(bPAeT3 (fX(bhj[u1jlDͣ6(j1cLjcwdYj\fkwǽ8"cTo\V׀W WaRjy7HVIF"<@})hG7M:˃x'Tlݏ?2ߢx|MW8 ],ҥ_ x"#Zt EgV{Cu4 z/-m ׄSg.S- ]] ypGxA`2ByGud4J`i%njO0_@;M zken7?ͯt$*Wkk]P:8ٿ`J0z0D[Qm!ډJQh"ty6SG.{|62+pp@/'E`-U*ZVh/ n n6(|{8& 6,G, 1tZa(6Gs/żׂRTTI}.˕J/ ? B4]LZGlB)"}t#ಂc ^2xLE,sZ<ňZPB8:Ep Q$DN}}q@|/!Ί"({+$"m[$-& Q#+`YJ:vv.A J[mTk/ooȔ:Z,}Am%h)c7 ѠEDϧ+%r5($ll5m=Eabғ_qΛa7 \_2ͣoZQG0G/SP\Rh@U quE3y V J gRnΗ-J=]gLiW۾u9LSJIZO ?QuȢ5X.'qQ2#baxʺVQH}O y-#;)QGx;ƪ^ĩ/!leg*p+`323nӝ fg8~\kubɸKQ?yVUO)5vQ#33F 6tAi)OJL9}zqDLn]wfL=ǯI~CIssӬ^'?4L{zd6F#;Fr6Ƥj]3Nuz!}q+$u!+d4OL[3دyߍՇwviT9b8$áWճ#CpxF X1znKC&zJf^;*K RBCZư {hmS#ԟe>dא%>k)Xm83U|wœq2Y@`fd 9@^m1&X[[iTZIW*GljgCll~b=Zث;qqݻz=ݓZٽݚ ]>)wpK+0'[VAdZ?(0<>,c0"GY|CMԵ}[7n)ybKOhGG|lV\]p$t G.hH `>*boT:ltZ^m̦RTBo{]ҸNOo4=9y1ݯ#|"4’:EFGy*F&yS'dۼj}$#qއ޺-aaarl_uٹ|b|,q퀙woi W &t,J`{O=dJN"R:ҘN"]"A~AP8]֚+bG$ QJH,W(uʉ, ߱0whҁ7.j}ߗ)6Ԛ/'^qxĐ;,F+Jq#I$rŃAUwBx;+p}h\v20%{>+- <^+^/Whk ͌+ p@3Fkr$Q!eK)ńx!cSEu*Y+KxDA [Æ"_.PB%V>̺NݵgK}*P8齲坃?pћoE ˋ+=z͋{[Lm.hG ^gkN} j[6K]S8D60嘎b;Z^PP`F@KE:9Cw?v,i4:[ GA3Uם2n@Mj*‡bԜጬ7kTW>]M\Wx޲,ik![d^2Ak0t uH%8CHv̓ L i'2M˔-m\!2qi; ѻ+CFvV|00fKsȵRGc~7R1w܍4$԰sJĽ=2fB4_jJv+?eV۲ٝ7[ik=\4䌡 W6cq0ZN%3N26X}UCfRT_,/Ǚ3$ñI >xH[MQ"$2Ʊb6aGyD𑄨1*OXkdxLX+&Ώ,6!d4DGM`:oxl֬HZ{2;jzGm@!UNI%hUN |Fdw5ZsYujqWmRZk:}1V/ /m'Hr$PiǡUA% KoM.#?@L @!!$v(F((Tlz9ʕ?m ny7֧XNHbY_P>\4p {ii\%F#HDxH(2'Ba:9`K B?d Z9(w&z7 bV+y~>Kc4(㬊р΂j3-wlڕrZ o:Snu]sgRex 4iKxy> :0U *tnءTkNZSrx)(=RMȔ2 N|FA>Rޗ 8iXrGr]F)Zp6Z V}% u|뭼6 :F:G/-=e}@=uȶySBmNߍU-4Qtޕ1l^,eEzKuw5~9Zd?QYШMfSe #iʌ]yݐz' tzH"# *YHf;/8%P`kRß;T{ 5:.Vt/BEĨ!yN/>Z߷w7/f75m͏﹍l v驕c)J/?Z݆ x7WV{M^xz cO#~' #@ۗJ'D+M`#9D'$A"H$Pa(>fWrqDA $pPQ1n"5Էk' }QbX'*I<4$C}P2Dd'bTaVL-hw q5ܯlә1Gt.`bsU_XskZ*`@Y՛4xsa0 p@QM3#ê-0AشԒVjuVa֪gDX O.T_,-@E'B#U"7ܒhZaj6eܷhu5Ԛ B WY'!. ~ݺcM) \|h+iiKiLglU#Y!i.K=<1!$=TO{]X8[6橸_x8qy3㍽3x|cbxacB@ P4P-&lC&4DGJ4AIZX%)?iE#iT"EB¦rD%of|5NRBL zUDKOU>X<܋o3't`~^:; ^"RT,7Kp49+i˒,J\,ht {^S+C{ޫj}O! ^JIEDЋν,6MHKKmmc%~l뇿Ԝ>N6禛w3_jrwks&+up %RokL-]w7aEe5ӣ9`MC M• ?[ PWNb- [R;'?KN7eϛdKJ&->!մy5L$Ohbh;8Pd1 'l[ C]sr7ñ1b/ _gd᧽rcXaBLXv1ݳ~u8RJ`lS)^F:d&DcFXHP` HX<.cVĘ48e81 dEJ- ִUmoViѿ*67Z?Motв^ë Eֹڳޠ]z]Hf>WTZ W)i|ud7E׽=_ ^~Ǟa>Y!2l=Ly$wTIQc䶡jEr $}8 R/r_L((T(r*\6O1_x+`:S"< C53L1 e^NE _irNt$5TnNnNn9 ҔW73gn{|,0C g;xNp}NjjB.5D_&'P(#Tm&~t'.`C@׏o[j<v }E?T4DlMg$>8ԯ>R<%ރ~ߨ}K9v,bWж݉4o$񜥨" DáI k#+)dc $w?[Ţ׋39vZ) 05 ͙SfTLƜGN,79b;@6uJTgN4'?'43T 0wuƹQ[`M+MBmb4}sT.m kc^ޝ7]{x6xh&$N68qp. QiZBTJ&-E}PmVBjh*5V&JZa/}o]7}qh_ JsNZ<g~ͳsrxԭŀWtAOw{ q4-TjcG[ VzioA yh ?o%,5FL6U/9:kj^-lƃV r/ 9`j(dbtѠ{o,$џM'J"J81oq"^SHtF8XG$#Ȳ'(^B9iɦ44E#0"e"ɫ80+NJ8HD+IN"Tp\;x L=9-"}}|c-)ՖSJPJ$ORd$⒔%?rr7ˠI6MCX6 [^n,YdуdB&B-T A^ D~*gha, Rp >CLe.lz+03z'"Y 2A}5M3 gRW~L3Cblph(8T}AmKɏ:>=GUaP80MJ]E~ĿW9`q`:WM|jƒ_x-R`Q-_gUѩbk vٻa cNS/ܹYvl=χ|~]$ʙLr^foXڼu6[/BG cQ4X1.z=F ,HY5tN.YОv|䪛9,dRÒ{^YÎ v_ -pm&8e0IGA6S.fAy<]拗?6Q?vW -<olu/u@_}sƇ>Y3{?qMaszW{M}C;e<6㞪3,u^ٲ.-gzIDJrlXP$"c%#aOpWtpYLH %)SVQ;Mg)bky.="G,IS~)]Yteb)X:C|;yG?zEլRc$E'i=obZEmn*Rxܙ5!j @?|0~{υjX&>5U߈=7 t3fph_3h#`*,x|cU ZJ]&S c VR]veg⇆ιFcIià6Ȣܗ`p:Z Y9ւ8IDRȏSyeP p䥀USTR&$:dreb0#NPOHH3t0= k,Ty\XlT1dP/ Km,,ȵab[`-[-=@ @?NoxKk\~*[5eG橌!В91з,2ܼT1 J_Uw= KK^{ E1NX$.;>Zn{ cy~ƶi ; c-Ze;4d e#dcEp(MGZv9#we3&Ȯl uTS*ٔWɴ(c]Ăfg UUM[epf_'~Nv> 1tҠT *;rf`+dQd=fsiJXOL 4R՜`E z,9yjt~ɝH.Ynpw[*+|h&vC?vOͰ}zO >2M"Kb&;T)GZVbRqt@z{D:RNWTѡuR:++ѐ^"u\+[{>kU#Sb^:qil(B vjLP hA(Z]D1)x>הEAe8bqeE) HAdCAӫ~0k?ws >.}W4.F?HV׌[X1҈x xf'a7`Sa/muQ~nB[EI|\'\E{i[H 9C:upO.ْI' 8_dcSrcy(C ZȾ) ۄ K 99ɕ&\ al̓te9{1dԜZc h~iiƸ!ղс]K׌Z;]kZEkZesߒw碴G*j`g5FTij:ۦء9=|JEF#D.rp$|$/!Q,(bRX wEDJR( 㤊b H8u"uu|/[UQ:x5,B7ySw/pdNDuX`sGlo >\*PB{5YeZR_&_i]/uE;*=]4̒B/kzbCOOڶ-LV)]V:{Nv|ifEZ 7߲.NA.+pыfB QǨsSׄ}tݐxJ~nvhym@txO=Ѷc<, (ZPe²/P‰UBeʲg%R'xDMu[SJ+﮼I@Ebt8*9rȞ3NA ߐY- "`x=RtÛP>~_# ]˘Z q\$/q1˻3Sҩ߿O*wgn=x~̨fb $/TC__U6m^/gF̉/;6~^{Hue(^yVrsXM`ԝ) ARHB/H%}ީEV]G6dEՔ|}O#r-_s ՖRE0/F6F*|bju*5w"YBTu}]kjA2@)4r?.iזGut~q՚9˒eUm5`̬hF4Īc@1w瓍fYqc00'& 8 ?8D3`-I;#D2k޴=T*mJLbi8bc ]mn>S5\|5P>/==bٶ޲`ksѯ8E+ӛ6 ȳt}l;s|;w8ı$ oR^Suu(tAfUietBh;`Ǵi4:-IӺ-ޞvv$=;?z\wE-+{[&O'h{kS#3= DӸ 0Ѐ2ԒZZo-:˅9ػ#̹ ~1aXMeb=ĄfǨ(Gj-XDN b Xy/S L=- @dBtZ0~]΢b/&?)F>zRy$%H %6 dPJ%Pe]>|cOJw= bAd7 9I7Gwjþ9Juꦫm=}q9\Нn (^f#O<XQr ( i(/ ' Hit2jܤj\=m&}>lhi#{[#P#s؛@_{#~Qe`@cԸOiM]ZH҂"Um6{P$~' hS$ǚ4Ǣ-DF=>^&S¿ߟ&ȹM.kSsX .J&TtγTtF]oμT.&棳8_1pXր')hub\*(t SOѭ/Jh-fdz{[*V!SPyGS:W[,_UX\S~X+'@WcCw^ؿ-\djvS>n /me\bɉ7 VM4CY Z4Nv\CA}JZ̙B."1g +bl-1vzÀ`XǍN%_7CKRZK-h0`cG@N &S}v k' %eTVdX >4 Xkq}:xixXU +@,Fh,p*Fd0:c5i~U"PDrQ?u?sՖSу[>,<2 \X۹z衮n![dKϗ7 =`eYߔ!#^s.uv'1ڧ)JqO}>qv*31xhY#δB?.eKOY*hYʨoi۹t+ݣ`LtsQKъ＋YZFF Q eZlx4HD_dmb0-Df twvԾc`, =A 5KJ [a{wȅ6ȡ{[QR酒Uu+BK}nUXKȘKs[8VEV-NÉdC!᠒A 9O@=jm%2R2'cRۦ|/OFǛW>Чe'r*%թ玽Id'_۶TYl~KWV}=׹Y{Ĉ>aY7;+?c멅GCtGeЍ_ΐ.jmlءa}ɝ;;ώĄӰʴj (P(-!Ъ۴IuQ1@&M77 "ްJ(w<< 7M!㶚bBdJ. LJ0 4A0 )|N{^#-cAW(C=i>C;b%=BF6tI\w;FgJfT̛̫̚U'UnbI3"{ [%an=M aY 5Lq+x <܄{i0rG>Ar+@r0Rѝ z )zZ0 ٜwa2{lV2S[2r8P4OmYs}~>:#G, N*x2oο@^PܰQ߲C(do&&I@'kClGF綞B$Э'xQUȔN*) 'q HC)QJ8r} =w⒗"4EB..)F89 uF%i}ƻ_KHN)4UsUwnr:(*roq6Mr ^ja+3`Ym;9|65|Bkl=u-+n}%vϸ-1trhkZ`6TL$ijcr{%Ua>j IIӤ8z&AwM;.#p2?,Kݯ(:`. X| 9(2Ifbl#6 H"( NE<E]Ģ.8 ?W|$S2&s(!=v@tTw=!&|"n',H-N/oI|w;@Fl| K`<"M:)ZRn]1DԕwG%z9;4mDH \}"K%X`TEbcR8NPHe`JeRax"M 2-:q|q椩+SM܎q0!'msc~d O}L^{!dρ-m1Ah vX3B1CVqy 77sϣz- '__.]V/k*_0п. c:W8=!҉1uv vJMEƈ1X6Uwc*@F>^1Ypi0R#t:wU5MŤqHiұ!6&MZ T.(Ҁ Xlv @mՑKcEP› |yZI<ՙL>zj1UFH kŰ{V$ɕrh ȼWYG2\}QߵS7,ܐDfX _-yM,٭XkVaRknJX ky@k aHྂ T˒7xb60.|IVέ:'O/:OfŰЁsv(`>ؠY%<;9A*%]M]w{l_?׾^ǎI8BB @* !ZXh&VQ DU!EK"AX5 i4>d혔QM@U1;^TKD#]>x }e%]o3B+aC;:M_˞o8Zn ~Org{.;Y6YvܜugoiՀ%D|zrl N٠ ,94szӾbq ~:taMf Vxā zA+L\S9RJcs*VP%{q:i&gP3v$OPhJ~]ԀUsa~{ jP'WC]k8çBCʵaĶ?o|Yo?`2P_$$HίY;6c+VYIg_YU ;k\}wᑿLEe$w$bj܃b]Mw۳ZKbh+vvhhIv%M1LMY,:<3<=;<sEO΋h3};]jdM} FV(;HmКHBvSAK%2TD~?x)JILZsmN*W( \Ü@u"}9J%Auڦ>049l[904Ri{4P~Q-a ^xY=hB/4#j'@ :߳!l>D~EqaR7r+;^<c%iK8}rUej~ᣡcp־^P]U\7ӽ} lӼ|o%UЄwFƄG ttD$ ʿi LHTja<q/IxeY%{\MڐmPV˕e lKVVs+$ ȧ;=lՄi~iYݥ?$|[ziMs0t=:c[De5\<2D\ULiu]B@E>>-l, 0=YTH$b:Ս'mgwۆS2ʆh'pwX!V>WSw\Zj`+\ NAjOi$)xUnqv;Qp Gk/wk푏J^M):&8dRq:Gp?E< mc?88ov Lkavx&t!͍kS\ V0E䲸Ь@|1ܳ_eWɄqZhicB)3B"!ept:g $"eFg3wSduI »-2j?0'q!g (l+\y=Ef|m. uhf*C~G4!OOLTPS֭jW7}ů[/U=!`C!Q* EiղLDTS0<ጵ ^Wg]ClZTq|MdiS:? UQ yZ?gO/1y-7qD|l59y Y K`5@5`!#Zp>Α_3^ixi4g7Vuah d"&zo/m ahz^ʕjRbi(DT6Ma9g{2oυU\ĻF;!O ,!u r5V<ɷ C5'S|D2H3WEM•W66${25Zl:i3ڻTPTKSxy11'"3hĿ D(jl/)DMI&UhQ1„w@ ٯ}pxc+4}"qϞ4d93WBƯGPMD~V`qw@*6EZQd~Q_*Acv}'l]>:iMjPOB{PEX%@Ԙ\n_>#Wt[ZȒ.rm8kr [_ښv +}ho ɣ ?ڱ]rW6L,.pى8BiQKa2zߛ֕Vfy<'59Pr(D"YVʽJ\Q g<hu@&&J3N %c-MrUYblO{5.o^uz^67,NjΕ<7"Ym&#'v *kX:S ^c zLv^0fLېO{;of!J[ZTryzޡyJ"kge.(&hP NK\$6t̒7SacH.j7sëϞl@ܐCoX,ea2͢ {o KGS]Mx^S8XP9T;d;rT.`9ȲwW;‘-tsd}i2]_lmB5c/\hs=!tfcSzAhr|`gA,`:6߾3bD^GۅܳIG9^[D]Q2Y9;m0ot w= &-S 1X 5~}F=]Y&4E~֬q;h'g~w¸a= +5c3h&U`]ڌx҅znB%oIe:>ֆbU;sPo9P?NClX/ik'`_al 'fi#9@s'ȹޯf|G{GtqQ4(L5pHz(R)ff8B~Lc Qb~Kg_6Aª™ԡf|_:Ͻ||h]yyH\ns[{r:j$"c?DK)Bc h(#X:vRW3c@_길Ni^E+>LubU:",mn&d+y^3DžbhNlRJnX ,goYЭ>X? 6t0OSL$5E}>> gky}/Ѷ/$*1dڡ}bwa_\u}So}=7sm9`M ,}}}Ɨo6+zWg,%hwĹc"4|>se=<KO>{Ho\v\]%8 \\C :NA|e>5CK9s LҘÞe@f[YiXV(/"s?וA,o`h*sD %ڋxTGcuTQʠ& GQOwuC{Mix@dvM8XY/ NshI#Ewc6:y9Um:4}f8nht@ D4uNTg4֋SUb: /atX72E 0Y*3^u?i,5 Gkr'է8k˺z:A?GA' Ε0,:fCB M=%Q5y[77%ixFW86`\q3iMx ȗAo< 1}47B>UX N~ %y|me %s}~J=r˨:ҳ}| )c+78r< KT8 R}ʱRgV!F,_/=JM}s O#A=F#6gS__ 2@pO]k.hP#L>TRC)'AzLw6h$:9k ;k)=hRXԃmbŸwVbG6Q>p whb?nH (}JY"wXz:欓p/k b~kCS/|?7)؍{(#up1sf&>.āCYhܺ٘s >8(P[L1 NF ;4: \p(w cN<cY&A;˸ ^{ hg7AէG}A?УyA{G}vnsA\P亵`1(ktc15:NMv~C`&t5v<_^9dw@gW?>: 3Dp<&]O|N?wC ׸+ԍMQ=hj)mOo(Ԗ* Ƃ07tQ|Wyڍ jjQxM~Ƴum-rD"b&=RKmmi(@z-QOS5K7ONM۝5UczgQ]q PJj*E oDP-Wux(D^Fb H $)g2A `T*Rj~%&r{s_bjw=ݻjOO8{Sߩ boHՈo'1e ϗxc_Rs3[9'v6 #f_tWuYS釁yz54*$ɒZsb.VwW'(>MSO3iBŸaȔsMjs"Ӌ諧'{zܑAtr0?OXQ;D.Q3yK4Ч6 nTX tTXSZ5[ QݩRs{}$ |ME8㩿}bw$PO.gb zM=QH?Xe2IjAd4óoM͝n YҦK8kыr~ӃUCEs^y/㏲MUքLoᬭ@OkyM}5Z*3geEemˏxeװmk[NF59um˱a}ݘmy.PZnO򭪣 N!al2~aɧP)75mOҟ`|v:4DcwCG6oRg7b9Ua-*O_a$G>޳-N%Pw$x(8ʰ>ha Z?;JDLJ.kW  ?@<E^h=eՏx#X_g$]N--zWWuV>/ݠB5ohwŪWExߵ&#gYN]U.?o.n!ur&3Yb nVcQ}MJiZǥj0h5a$x@=i&|6+4G1r7v*=Q@WktN3Ik&3mFsyzL1Ө p3&tdimSٗ5JsYHfZ`f?R; uL3o83?>8xVS ʎ巭9Tf݄ :l}J*\C=;3k@ǀE`2odT.rc#Fs1Z[;|!:l.H<ȕimL!6.:u3t>Z4x j~k/~E>MR^Ͷ|HΛחg+h碌|Eβwp+nV{ӽ<E;.+Zwy{@<.}c>hE?6Qc /4|a'@:w 2<j2H~}m`_hk9JY`o6.S:xl-;Kyv?]1| c 1' WY1=R䟍kiZz3h@6z1{$څ=ux79jb#~m)GBsa~ X#ا8jF?@us}$V@O!ڼFkkM(y"_O?M.BD^C?n_侱$Żaρ/"8n 혯2/^v]Yg,^ئ.Zo^p@L(+ ?8_sڊ}t`"~wz F-j MQ0^j7ᮤ^ZSMuW:8 ͪs\j%&)[HE ngch6cv=H}d-dd]z@SSYycMxx. 7q汞7g*Z;4MOuY'B k1iCʭ.uuە1~Xڲ GawdJW@3 Ns1+ۯt<_4)`0H@7gN2>u8;Z !P\cPBKEuB)qZ1Lo :AZt70i" D &|6 ZJߨ!u+Hr!:W[(!ݾbD :rmo?XM:wd[2j8Է+µKv:NN ȹ\H]`WW yUHby -$|Z,b8Zq:~^matHyŪ9XLA39v< ?cn983El1Vs@վVj=rr8Ə1b{f6o7q|/LXW*yi2I"ٙ><'ém檩-cS)b$ҝ6\wy:*V#)FWU$Ry= C9 s~ynRNؤJ2,#Bgꐷxł7B% Cp[|X͏VuΡ4Xa"N~89eʧ|LTeQU"IWCce&\H"H)f8cCRe!wn'$uek6:i}D7jL#*+B ԶAۡkc_2_8RDMrί_y/U<sDZ^gPGB$q\[U\FǑ+ޑϨ@ˣ;rt7woYREÚHN_e;̴'j8/F!۝9*QGsU2sXMw\5ἱN,71Y6cW \?;W: xu&zGqDd>XrƸ t2>n\ ojO)8|a~`]E1OӗTX]FQ?{G9qoR{Jvk{f uu2OW :`yrk4צ p*v0^nPo=Jcv\joUZ#u鮎~W">LT_1E^<ԝcB;Q-Zz9[POyJоUg*:3؋bSOcjϋվfhk715,{R C*Ws+v\!OYYB%;= 1"8h|  4.-V@d >0Gl%UYB_ǁMɾ,SZsٞJφx:TϵfP1,#1n0 H^*c0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 C Aa=\h;vցA`7ak_c mĻa١QXv)=$(-ònQXleXv(]x-2~m;(e`*rX,$sy~Kk l瓁/6l2?P~g(72c8A;cN$ʓ(Y~<:'umN#&|$&'~%!,ِapdP2c/N jh"u> iȧC( M4uiM&t4u;|tj5iVM{:{sy]sC$`) C#K0-Nkb}:;Q 0 N|bDRʳL5eQ}|S\3 (ĺ~:QiiFӠaK>|`)E <ЅK&|q^迳~@6O; tWb21u8͉T2 On@Ti=uP$mCtwR 1É)OEh$oSD::'d$$6MLX3H@l< i)#`өbtP8ɨS!3'FuOףQ=JE-H*dQ}*<wbzW?4O l '3s=VHNQ}"я M7Bnԏ\m#M҇Q oWr4[84?4 ފ G\JoYTpT|2D|;g'`GPp]\uw+Zͥf2 dN2f. A\fjD[[ 1 b^Gk^5n}(0$^BH"UoMʼxQO0FJ~ op(⼍zUP5|LI&/bea5 ĿR0# hTy~ior3 _ y#;v")o8} 9&r$@IqÓ"%xr2jnX,LJn~\ .!:/&iy+6ȟŒA~+1~ r#my2E3̛xÁo<9;(ʳ|M>E^+>A/B3g(iq$!Lԑ"u v\+KV#ϐ͞dc$H64!v(f1CV{fSWrinKK2j Z4Kehi,V[mJkj5[MVۚ oaƄĸ?ƁKŠ d]0p}{00fGPp?iБ͖98[DPYKyBCy\`'՛s19|a⠯WiɆ->WGWWm} Awh^8*<׽e^8<v0=2 `Q)2`3# 0' v# 2cҽe1% ̘Ec>)spHS@k̚Agb ]6!h9WZ*Z-~fLA]U2>Z*%ZLztA+H)D2Hf*RP `QMudKDK `ޠdXO[ bX)v1\dn1mF`o ުm,mƍB ő MQ 6=@Gov endstream endobj 70 0 obj [76 0 R 77 0 R] endobj 71 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (had to be evaluated against the standard set by that state law. )Tj 24.575 0 Td (For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes that the)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm (Hearing Officer erred, as a matter of law, by holding that DDESS had to \ comply with North Carolina law.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Absent a clear, unequivocal federal statutory requirement to the contrar\ y, the federal government is not required to)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (comply with state law requirements. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 14.774 0 Td (Hancock v. Train)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 426 U.S. 167, 179 \(1976\);)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC /TT1 1 Tf (EPA v. California ex rel. State Water)Tj -14.774 -1.125 Td (Resources Control Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 426 U.S. 200, 211 \(1976\). )Tj (Given the constitutional underpinnings of the doctrine of federal)Tj T* (immunity from state law, nothing less than)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (an act of Congress can require DDESS to comply with state law when)Tj T* (carrying out its duties and responsibilities. )Tj 17.192 0 Td (Accordingly, the Hearing Officer erred, as a matter of law, by relying o\ n)Tj -17.192 -1.125 Td (policy)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (arguments and various matters other than a federal statute to conclude t\ hat DDESS must comply with North)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (Carolina special education law.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 166.6094 636.75 Tm (\(7\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 166.6094 636 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 606.75 Tm (During the proceedings below and on appeal, the Child's parents have not\ cited any federal statute that provides a clear,)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (unequivocal requirement that DDESS comply with state special education l\ aw)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (requirements. )Tj 37.323 0 Td (The parents' reply brief)Tj -37.323 -1.125 Td (only cites to nonstatutory provisions in support of its contention that \ the Board should affirm the Hearing Officer's)Tj T* (ruling on the applicability of North Carolina)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (law.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (In concluding that DDESS must comply with North Carolina law, the Hearin\ g Officer did cite the following federal)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (statutes: Section 6 of Public Law 81-874 \(64 Statutes at Large 1100, 11\ 07\); Section)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (23 of Public Law 102-119 \(105)Tj T* (Statutes at Large 587, 604\); and Section 2164\(f\) of Title 10 of the U\ .S. Code. )Tj 31.188 0 Td (On appeal, DDESS contends the Hearing)Tj -31.188 -1.125 Td (Officer's reliance on Section 6 of Public Law 81-874 is misplaced becaus\ e Public Law 81-874 was repealed in 1994 by)Tj T* (Section 331\(b\) of Public Law 103-382 \(108 Statutes at Large 3518, 396\ 5\). )Tj 30.05 0 Td (For the reasons that follow, the Board)Tj -30.05 -1.125 Td (concludes none)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (of the federal statutes cited by the Hearing Officer sets forth a clear,\ unequivocal statutory requirement)Tj T* (that DDESS must comply with state law.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Public Law 81-874 was enacted into law on September 30, 1950, more than \ 20 years before the federal special)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (education statute that preceded the IDEA. Section 6 of Public Law 81-874\ deals with the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (education of children who)Tj T* (reside on federal property. )Tj 10.801 0 Td (The last sentence of Section 6 provides: "To the maximum extent practica\ ble, such education)Tj -10.801 -1.125 Td (shall be comparable to free public education provided)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (for children in comparable communities in the State." )Tj 43.477 0 Td (The Board)Tj -43.477 -1.125 Td (does not need to decide what constitutes a "comparable" education to con\ clude that Section 6 does not provide a clear,)Tj T* (unequivocal)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (statutory requirement that schools operated under the authority of Secti\ on 6 must comply with state law)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (requirements.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 81.6426 354.75 Tm (\(8\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 81.6426 354 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 324.75 Tm (On October 7, 1991, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amen\ dments of 1991 \(Public Law 102-119\))Tj 0 -1.125 TD (became law. )Tj 5.247 0 Td (Section 23 of Public Law 102-119 \(105 Statutes at Large at 604\) amende\ d)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Section 6\(a\) of Public Law 81-)Tj -5.247 -1.125 Td (874, but it did not eliminate the comparability language in Section 6 th\ at was quoted in the preceding paragraph.)Tj T* (Nothing in Section 23 provides a clear, unequivocal)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (statutory requirement that schools operated under authority of)Tj T* (Section 6 must comply with state law requirements.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Section 2164 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code was enacted in October 5, 1994\ as part of Public Law 103-337 \(108 Statutes)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (at Large 2727\). )Tj 6.386 0 Td (Nothing in Section 2164 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code clearly or)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (unequivocally directs or requires the)Tj -6.386 -1.125 Td (Secretary of Defense to comply with state law in connection with domesti\ c dependent elementary and secondary)Tj T* (schools. )Tj (However, Section 2164\(f\)\(2\) warrants)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (further discussion in light of DDESS's appeal arguments. )Tj 42.116 0 Td (Section)Tj -42.116 -1.125 Td (2164\(f\)\(2\) reads: "Paragraph \(1\) may not be construed as diminishi\ ng for children with disabilities enrolled in day)Tj T* (educational)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (programs provided for under this section the extent of substantive right\ s, protections, and procedural)Tj T* (safeguards that were available under section 6\(a\) of Public Law 81-874\ \(20 U.S.C. 241\(a\)\) to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (children with disabilities)Tj T* (as of October 7, 1991." )Tj (As indicated in the preceding paragraph, October 7, 1991 was the date th\ at the Individuals with)Tj T* (Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1991 \(Public)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Law 102-119\) became law. )Tj 34.047 0 Td (Reading the two statutes together,)Tj -34.047 -1.125 Td (the Board concludes that Section 2164\(f\) \(2\) was intended to incorpo\ rate the comparability standard of Section 6 to the)Tj T* (extent it was in)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (existence with Section 23 of the IDEA Amendments of 1991. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 31.188 0 Td (See also)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( 10 U.S.C. Section 2164\(b\)\(2\))Tj -31.188 -1.125 Td (\(using comparability language\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (On October 20, 1994, Public Law 103-382 became law. )Tj 22.605 0 Td (Section 331\(b\) of Public Law 103-382 repealed Public Law 81-)Tj -22.605 -1.125 Td (874. )Tj (However that repeal does not have the legal significance attributed to i\ t by)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (DDESS. )Tj 35.685 0 Td (It would not be reasonable to)Tj -35.685 -1.125 Td (conclude that Congress first enacted Section 2164\(f\)\(2\) --- includin\ g its incorporation of comparability through)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 76 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[166.0 634.0 177.0 645.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 77 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[81.0 352.0 92.0 363.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 68 0 obj [78 0 R 79 0 R 80 0 R] endobj 69 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (\(1994\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hampton School District v.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Dobrowolski)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.554 0 Td (, 976 F.2d 48, 52 \(1st Cir. 1992\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hudson v. Wilson)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 828 F.2d 1059,)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 738.75 Tm (1063 \(4th Cir. 1987\).)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 117.6602 743.25 Tm (\(4\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 117.6602 742.5 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 129.0288 738.75 Tm ( )Tj (Even if a party demonstrates an entitlement to relief, )Tj 21.52 0 Td (the relief granted must be reasonable and)Tj -30.939 -1.125 Td (equitable under the particular facts and circumstances of the case. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 26.516 0 Td (Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.803 0 Td (, 31)Tj -46.318 -1.125 Td (F.3d 1489, 1496 \(9th Cir. 1994\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Here, the Child's parents requested a due process hearing and sought rel\ ief under 32 C.F.R. Part 80, alleging that the)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (Child was being denied a FAPE. )Tj 13.304 0 Td (Accordingly, the parents had the burden of proof in)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (the proceedings below.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 536.541 674.25 Tm (\(5\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 536.541 673.5 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 656.25 Tm (Specifically, the parents had the burden of demonstrating that the Child\ had been or was being denied a FAPE. )Tj 44.572 0 Td (If the)Tj -44.572 -1.125 Td (parents failed to demonstrate that the Child had been or)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (was being denied a FAPE, then they would not be entitled to)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (any relief. )Tj 4.303 0 Td (If the parents met their burden of demonstrating a denial of FAPE, then \ they had the additional burden of)Tj -4.303 -1.125 Td (demonstrating that the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (relief they were seeking was reasonable and equitable under the particul\ ar facts and)Tj T* (circumstances of their case.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Burden on appeal)Tj ET 0 G q 1 0 0 1 16 576 cm 0 0 m 84.639 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 100.6387 576.75 Tm (. )Tj (Nothing in IDEA or 32 C.F.R. Part 80 specifically addresses the matter )Tj 29.245 0 Td (of which party bears the)Tj -36.298 -1.125 Td (burden on appeal. )Tj 7.386 0 Td (In the absence of a statutory or regulatory provision to the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (contrary, the Board concludes that it)Tj -7.386 -1.125 Td (should follow the general principle that there is no presumption of erro\ r in the proceedings below. )Tj 39.461 0 Td (Accordingly, the)Tj -39.461 -1.125 Td (appealing party bears the burden of raising)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (claims of error and demonstrating that such errors were committed.)Tj T* (Standard of review on appeal)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 16 510 cm 0 0 m 140.613 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 156.6133 510.75 Tm (. )Tj (In special education cases, the Board gives deference to the Hearing Off\ icer's credibility)Tj -11.718 -1.125 Td (determinations and resolution of conflicting evidence, provided they are\ based on)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (a preponderance of the evidence.)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (DoDDS Case No. 97-E-001 \(December 2, 1997\) at p. 4 \(citing earlier sp\ ecial education case decisions by predecessor)Tj T* (DoD appellate authority\). )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 10.497 0 Td (See also Independent)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (School District v. S.D.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 17.69 0 Td (, 88 F.3d 556, 561 \(8th Cir. 1996\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Carlisle Area)Tj -28.187 -1.125 Td (School v. Scott P.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 7.026 0 Td (, 62 F.3d 520, 527-29 \(3d Cir. 1995\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.803 0 Td (, 116 S.Ct. 1419 \(1996\).)Tj -26.829 -2.125 Td (Whether DDESS has provided a FAPE for an eligible dependent is a mixed q\ uestion of law and fact, and a Hearing)Tj T* (Officer's determination of that issue is reviewed )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 19.424 0 Td (de novo)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (. )Tj (DoDDS Case No. 97-E-001)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (\(December 2, 1997\) at p. 4 \(citing)Tj -19.424 -1.125 Td (federal cases\). )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 5.968 0 Td (See also Doe v. Board of Education of Oak Park & River Forest High Schoo\ l District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 34.272 0 Td (, 115 F.3d 1273,)Tj -40.24 -1.125 Td (1276 \(7th Cir. 1997\)\(whether school district)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (satisfied requirements of IDEA is mixed question of law and fact which i\ s)Tj T* (reviewed )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (de novo)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( on appeal\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 11.995 0 Td (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.72 0 Td (, 118 S.Ct. 564 \(1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hampton School District v. Dobrowolski)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 25.805 0 Td (, 976 F.2d 48,)Tj -42.52 -1.125 Td (52)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (\(1st Cir. 1992\)\(determination whether IEP was appropriate is a mixed \ question of law and fact\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 39.906 0 Td (JSK v. Hendry)Tj -39.906 -1.125 Td (County School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 8.61 0 Td (, 941 F.2d 1563, 1571 \(11th Cir. 1991\)\(whether IEP provided a)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (FAPE is mixed question of law)Tj -8.61 -1.125 Td (and fact subject to )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 7.553 0 Td (de novo)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( review\).)Tj -7.553 -2.125 Td (A Hearing Officer's interpretation of statutory authorities or DoD regul\ ations is entitled to no deference on appeal and is)Tj T* (subject to plenary or )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 8.442 0 Td (de novo)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( review on appeal. )Tj 10.718 0 Td (DoDDS Case No. 97-E-001)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (\(December 2, 1997\) at p. 4 \(citing earlier)Tj -19.16 -1.125 Td (special education decision by predecessor DOD appellate authority\). )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 27.685 0 Td (See also Carlisle Area School District v. Scott P.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.553 0 Td (,)Tj -47.237 -1.125 Td (62 F.3d 520, 532 \(3d Cir. 1995\)\(appeals)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (panel has plenary review over hearing officer's legal rulings\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 41.113 0 Td (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.72 0 Td (, 116)Tj -45.833 -1.125 Td (S.Ct. 1419 \(1996\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Applicability of 1997 IDEA Amendments)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 16 231 cm 0 0 m 201.967 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 217.9668 231.75 Tm (. )Tj (The 1997 IDEA Amendments do not have retroactive application to matters)Tj -16.831 -1.125 Td (that occurred before their effective date. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 16.296 0 Td (Fowler v. Unified School District No.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (259)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 16.776 0 Td (, 128 F.3d 1431, 1434-36 \(10th Cir.)Tj -33.072 -1.125 Td (1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (K.R. v. Anderson Community School Corp.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 20.054 0 Td (, 125 F.3d 1017, 1019 * \(7th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Cypress-Fairbanks)Tj -20.054 -1.125 Td (Independent School District v. Michael F.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 16.801 0 Td (, 118)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (F.3d 245, 247 n.1 \(5th Cir. 1997\). )Tj (Although the Hearing Officer ruled)Tj -16.801 -1.125 Td (that the 1997 IDEA Amendments were not applicable \(Decision at p. 30\),\ he referred to portions of that legislation to)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (bolster his)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (analysis. )Tj 8.11 0 Td (Having ruled the 1997 IDEA Amendments were inapplicable, the Hearing Off\ icer could not rely on)Tj -8.11 -1.125 Td (any of those amendments to support or bolster his analysis. )Tj 23.913 0 Td (The Board will not sustain or)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (uphold any analysis or legal)Tj -23.913 -1.125 Td (rulings based on such a selective application of the 1997 IDEA Amendment\ s as persuasive authority.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Discussion of Appeal Issues)Tj T* (1. )Tj (Whether the Hearing Officer erred by concluding that North Carolina law \ applies to this case)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 28 85.5 cm 0 0 m 447.17 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 475.1699 86.25 Tm (. )Tj (During the proceedings)Tj -38.264 -1.375 Td (below, the Child's parents contended that DDESS failed to comply with No\ rth)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Carolina's special education law)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 548.875 74.25 Tm (\(6\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG q 1 0 0 1 548.875 73.5 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 560.2437 69.75 Tm ( when)Tj -45.354 -1.125 Td (providing educational and related services to the Child in that State. )Tj 27.381 0 Td (Despite the arguments of DDESS to the contrary,)Tj -27.381 -1.125 Td (the Hearing Officer concluded that North)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Carolina law applied and held that DDESS' actions with respect to the Ch\ ild)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 78 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[117.0 741.0 128.0 752.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 79 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[537.0 672.0 548.0 683.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 80 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[549.0 72.0 560.0 83.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 65 0 obj [81 0 R 82 0 R] endobj 66 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 756 Tm (mother met several times to collaborate in drafting new Individualized E\ ducation)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Program \(IEP\) goals and objectives)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 742.5 Tm (and to consider placement issues.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (On April 21, 1997, the CSC proposed an IEP for the Child which would cov\ er an Extended School Year during June)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (and July 1997 and the 1997-1998 school year. )Tj 18.691 0 Td (The parents rejected the proposed)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (IEP because it did not provide the)Tj -18.691 -1.125 Td (Child with a complete program of Lovaas therapy for 52 weeks a year.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Child's mother requested mediation, which was attempted in May 1997.\ )Tj 30.812 0 Td (Mediation failed to achieve resolution of)Tj -30.812 -1.125 Td (the disagreement between DDESS and the Child's parents.)Tj T* (On May 16, 1997, the Child's mother petitioned for a due process hearing\ . )Tj 29.952 0 Td (After resolution of various procedural)Tj -29.952 -1.125 Td (matters, including discovery, a due process hearing was held on Septembe\ r 22-26, 1997)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (and October 15-16, 1997. )Tj 45.877 0 Td (The)Tj -45.877 -1.125 Td (parties made post-hearing written submissions on the issue of reimbursem\ ent.)Tj T* (In the proceedings below, the Child's parents contended: \(1\) North Car\ olina special education law applied and required)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (DDESS to provide a free appropriate public education \(FAPE\) for their \ son )Tj 30.437 0 Td (that)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (maximized his full potential; \(2\) the)Tj -30.437 -1.125 Td (educational gains achieved by their son from October 1994 to July 1996 w\ ere minimal and inadequate; \(3\) only)Tj T* (implementation of full Lovaas therapy for the Child)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (all year long would provide the Child with a FAPE; and \(4\) DDESS)Tj T* (should reimburse the parents for expenses they incurred in providing Lov\ aas therapy for the Child at home.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Hearing Officer issued a written decision, dated December 24, 1997. \ )Tj 29.545 0 Td (In the decision, the Hearing Officer)Tj -29.545 -1.125 Td (concluded: \(1\) North Carolina law applied to the case; \(2\) the Child\ had been denied a)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (FAPE; and \(3\) a complete)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (program of Lovaas therapy would provide the Child with a FAPE. )Tj 26.773 0 Td (The Hearing Officer granted the parents relief,)Tj -26.773 -1.125 Td (including reimbursement in the sum of $34,221.12 for)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (various expenses incurred by the parents in connection with their)Tj T* (efforts to provide Lovaas therapy for their Child. )Tj 19.8 0 Td (The Hearing Officer denied the parents some of the relief they)Tj -19.8 -1.125 Td (requested, and denied)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (them reimbursement for approximately $43,600 worth of other expenses for\ which they had)Tj T* (requested reimbursement. )Tj 10.58 0 Td (The Hearing Officer also directed DDESS to pay for continuation of the C\ hild's)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Lovaas)Tj -10.58 -1.125 Td (therapy through the end of July 1999, with various detailed conditions a\ ttached.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (DDESS appealed the Hearing Officer's decision. )Tj 19.702 0 Td (The Child's parents submitted reply briefs, but did not cross-appeal the\ )Tj -19.702 -1.125 Td (Hearing Officer's decision. )Tj 11.009 0 Td (Rather, the Child's parents indicated that they)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (wanted the Board to affirm the Hearing)Tj -11.009 -1.375 Td (Officer's decision.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 103.4629 348 Tm (\(2\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 103.4629 347.25 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g /TT1 1 Tf 12 0 0 12 16 315 Tm (APPEAL ISSUES)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg /TT0 1 Tf 9.75 0 0 9.75 108.3613 319.5 Tm (\(3\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 108.3613 318.75 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 289.5 Tm (The DDESS appeal raises the following issues: \(1\) whether the Hearing \ Officer erred by concluding that North Carolina)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (law applies to this case; \(2\) whether the Hearing Officer erred by fin\ ding that the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Child was denied a FAPE; and \(3\))Tj T* (whether the Hearing Officer erred by finding that the Child was entitled\ to reimbursement and other relief. )Tj 42.874 0 Td (Before)Tj -42.874 -1.125 Td (addressing these issues, it would be helpful to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (review some legal principles applicable to this case.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Burden of proof at hearing)Tj ET 0 G q 1 0 0 1 16 222.75 cm 0 0 m 127.957 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 143.957 223.5 Tm (. )Tj (Nothing in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act \(IDEA\) or 3\ 2 C.F.R. Part 80)Tj -10.663 -1.125 Td (specifically addresses the matter of who bears the burden of proof in sp\ ecial)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (education cases at the hearing level. )Tj 45.316 0 Td (In the)Tj -45.316 -1.125 Td (absence of a statutory or regulatory provision to the contrary, it is we\ ll-settled that the moving party has the burden of)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (proof with respect to its claims \(except)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (to the extent the nonmoving party does not dispute those claims\) and mu\ st show)Tj T* (it is entitled to receive the relief sought.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Apart from the general principle stated in the preceding paragraph, ther\ e is a consensus that the party alleging a denial)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (of FAPE or challenging the adequacy of an IEP bears the burden of proof.\ )Tj /TT2 1 Tf 29.908 0 Td (Salley)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (v. St. Tammany Parish School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 17.498 0 Td (,)Tj -47.406 -1.125 Td (57 F.3d 458, 467 \(5th Cir. 1995\); )Tj /TT2 1 Tf (Amann v. Stow School System)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 25.526 0 Td (, 982 F.2d 644, 650 \(1st Cir. 1992\); )Tj /TT2 1 Tf (A.E. v. Independent)Tj -25.526 -1.125 Td (School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 6.027 0 Td (, 936 F.2d 472, 475 \(10th)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Cir. 1991\); )Tj /TT2 1 Tf (Cordrey v. Euckert)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 22.692 0 Td (, 917 F.2d 1460, 1469 \(6th Cir. 1990\), )Tj /TT2 1 Tf (cert.)Tj -28.719 -1.125 Td (denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 2.666 0 Td (, 499 U.S. 938 \(1991\). )Tj (If the party alleging a denial of FAPE or challenging the adequacy of an\ IEP fails to meet)Tj -2.666 -1.125 Td (that)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (burden, then the party is not entitled to receive relief. )Tj /TT2 1 Tf 23.242 0 Td (Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael F.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 24.717 0 Td (,)Tj -47.959 -1.125 Td (118 F.3d 245, 248 \(5th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT2 1 Tf (Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 33.108 0 Td (,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (22 F.3d 228, 234 \(9th Cir. 1994\);)Tj /TT2 1 Tf -33.108 -1.125 Td (Doe v. Board of Education of Tullahoma City Schools)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 21.637 0 Td (, 9 F.3d 455, 460-61 \(6th Cir. 1993\), )Tj /TT2 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.581 0 Td (, 114 S.Ct. 2104)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 81 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[103.0 345.0 114.0 356.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 82 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[108.0 317.0 119.0 328.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 58 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[541.0 174.0 552.0 185.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 50 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 15/Type/Page>> endobj 83 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 209.25 591.75 556.5 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g /TT1 1 Tf 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (Clyde K. v. Puyallup School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 14.581 0 Td (, 35 F.3d 1396, 1400 n.5 and 1402 n.10 \(9th Cir.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1994\).)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 729.75 Tm (19. )Tj (It was untenable for the Hearing Officer to conclude "[i]t would be ineq\ uitable to hold [the Child's] parents to a prior)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (notice requirement and yet fail to hold DDESS to a requirement to have t\ old)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (them that they must give prior notice")Tj T* (\(Decision at p. 31\). )Tj 7.942 0 Td (As already discussed, courts have held that parents have an obligation t\ o give reasonable notice to)Tj -7.942 -1.125 Td (schools of their specific concerns and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (grievances. )Tj 20.048 0 Td (Such cases demonstrate it is not inconsistent with principles of equity)Tj -20.048 -1.125 Td (or simple fairness to hold parents responsible for informing schools of \ their concerns and grievances.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (20. )Tj (The sophistication of the parents and their prior experience, or lack th\ ereof, with special education procedures are)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (relevant considerations in this area. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 14.384 0 Td (Heather S. v. State of Wisconsin)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 12.859 0 Td (, 125 F.3d)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1045, 1061 \(7th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Evans v.)Tj -27.243 -1.125 Td (District No. 17 of Douglas County)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 13.778 0 Td (, 841 F.2d 824, 829 \(8th Cir. 1988\).)Tj -13.778 -2.125 Td (21. )Tj (It is frivolous for DDESS to argue that the "knew or should have known" \ standard is novel in special education law)Tj T* (and without precedent. )Tj 9.386 0 Td (The standard has been applied by federal courts in special)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (education cases. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 30.127 0 Td (Rodiriecus L. v.)Tj -39.513 -1.125 Td (Waukegan School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 10.498 0 Td (, 90 F.3d 249, 254 \(7th Cir. 1996\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf ( M.C. v. Central Regional School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 30.443 0 Td (, 81 F.3d 389,)Tj -40.941 -1.125 Td (396-97 \(3d Cir. 1996\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 13.997 0 Td (, 117 S.Ct. 176)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (\(1996\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Murphy v. Timberlane Regional School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 28.553 0 Td (, 22 F.3d)Tj -42.55 -1.125 Td (1186, 1194 \(1st Cir. 1994\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 15.831 0 Td (, 115 S.Ct. 484 \(1994\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 28.497 0 Td (, 22 F.3d)Tj -44.328 -1.125 Td (228, 232 \(9th)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Cir. 1994\). )Tj (Moreover, the Board has recognized its applicability in these proceeding\ s. )Tj 40.157 0 Td (DoDDS Case No.)Tj -40.157 -1.125 Td (97-E-001 \(December 2, 1997\) at p. 8. )Tj 15.273 0 Td (Of course, whether the standard reasonably can be)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (applied will depend on the)Tj -15.273 -1.125 Td (particular facts of each case.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (22. )Tj (This figure reflects: a reduction of $186.28 for duplicate items or exce\ ssive items acknowledged by the parents)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (\(Correspondence Volume II, Tab 61\); a reduction of an additional $18.9\ 0 for an)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (expense listed in the November 18,)Tj T* (1996-April 21, 1997 period which indicates it relates to expenses that w\ ere incurred outside that period; and the)Tj T* (inclusion of two items \(totaling $63.49\) that straddle)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (the beginning and end of the November 18, 1996-April 21, 1997)Tj T* (period for which an apportionment or proration is not practical. )Tj 25.576 0 Td (The Hearing Officer granted the parents reimbursement)Tj -25.576 -1.125 Td (for a portion of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (expenses incurred in support of their fundraising \(Decision at pp. 33-3\ 4\). )Tj 35.796 0 Td (DDESS' appeal does not)Tj -35.796 -1.125 Td (expressly or by fair implication challenge the reimbursement of those ex\ penses. )Tj 32.157 0 Td (As discussed)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (elsewhere in this decision,)Tj -32.157 -1.125 Td (there is no presumption of error below. )Tj 15.885 0 Td (Accordingly, the Board declines to disturb the Hearing Officer's award o\ f)Tj -15.885 -1.125 Td (reimbursement for such expenses to the extent they fall)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (within the period of November 18, 1996 through April 21, 1997.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (23. )Tj (This includes medical services and supplies for the Child's allergies, a\ nd materials for IEP meetings. )Tj 41.92 0 Td (The Hearing)Tj -41.92 -1.125 Td (Officer's 20% reduction of expenses for program materials and supplies i\ s not)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (included in this figure and will be)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (discussed later in this decision.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (24. )Tj (There remain a few items, not amounting to a large dollar figure, that m\ ay or may not be reasonable expenses for)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (supplies and materials. )Tj 9.387 0 Td (Considering the particular facts of this case and taking into)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (account the equitable principle of)Tj -9.387 -1.125 Td (considering the equities, the relative positions of the parties, and the\ relative potential hardships \(27A Am. Jur. 2d)Tj /TT1 1 Tf T* (Equity)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 2.61 0 Td ( Section 102\), the Board concludes the most)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (equitable course of action on this matter would be decline to remand)Tj -2.61 -1.125 Td (the case for further proceedings before the Hearing Officer to address t\ he reasonableness of the remaining items of)Tj T* (supplies and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (materials.)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 15 0 obj <> endobj 45 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 10/Type/Page>> endobj 46 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 11/Type/Page>> endobj 47 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 12/Type/Page>> endobj 48 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 13/Type/Page>> endobj 49 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 14/Type/Page>> endobj 90 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 756 Tm (4. )Tj (Based on these cases, the Board does not find merit in the premise of th\ e parents' argument \(Petitioner's Second Reply)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 742.5 Tm (to Respondent's Statement of Issues and Arguments at p. 25\) that DDESS \ had)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (the burden of proving the adequacy of the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (April 21, 1997 IEP.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (5. )Tj (There is nothing in the record that explains why the Hearing Officer con\ ducted the hearing by having DDESS present)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (its case first. )Tj 5.276 0 Td (The Hearing Officer has the authority to manage the proceedings)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (below and conduct the hearing. )Tj 39.041 0 Td (32 C.F.R.)Tj -44.317 -1.125 Td (Part 80, Appendix C, Paragraph D.1.h. )Tj (However, that authority is not unfettered and does not explain or justif\ y the)Tj T* (Hearing Officer's unorthodox approach in)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (having DDESS present its case before the parents presented their case.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (6. )Tj (North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 115C, Section 115C-106. )Tj 28.189 0 Td (For reasons not apparent from the record or the)Tj -28.189 -1.125 Td (Hearing Officer's decision, the Child's parents and the Hearing Officer \ relied solely)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (on the section of the North Carolina)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (law pertaining to state policy on special education, ignoring other sect\ ions of the North Carolina special education law.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (7. )Tj (For the same reasons, the Board rejects DDESS' nonstatutory and policy a\ rguments for why it does not have to)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (comply with North Carolina special education law.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (8. )Tj (The Board expresses no opinion as to the legal significance of the compa\ rability standard in other contexts. )Tj 44.154 0 Td (The)Tj -44.154 -1.125 Td (Board will address that issue when it is properly raised in a due proces\ s hearing and is)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (relevant to an appeal.)Tj T* (9. )Tj (Because the Board has concluded that the Hearing Officer erred by applyi\ ng North Carolina law, the Board need not)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (address DDESS' alternative argument that the Hearing Officer erred in hi\ s)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (interpretation and application of North)Tj T* (Carolina law.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (10. )Tj (The record evidence shows the parents did not object to the goals and ob\ jectives of the April 21, 1997 IEP, but)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (merely contended it was inadequate because it did not provide for total \ Lovaas)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (therapy. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 35.238 0 Td (See, e.g.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, Exhibit 70; Hearing)Tj -35.238 -1.125 Td (Transcript at pp. 675-77, 1044-46, 1111-13, 1117, 1143-44. )Tj 24.163 0 Td (Even an expert witness for the parents testified that the)Tj -24.163 -1.125 Td (goals and objectives of the April 21, 1997 IEP)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (were reasonable. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 25.743 0 Td (See)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( Hearing Transcript at pp. 850-51, 854-55.)Tj -25.743 -2.125 Td (11. )Tj (An IEP may be found to be inappropriate if it merely repeats or reiterat\ es an earlier IEP that was inadequate.)Tj /TT1 1 Tf T* (Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael F.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 24.717 0 Td (, 118 F.3d 245, 253 \(5th)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Cir. 1997\).)Tj -24.717 -2.125 Td (12. )Tj (The Hearing Officer's finding about the appropriateness of Lovaas therap\ y has relevance to the issue of)Tj T* (reimbursement, which will be discussed later in this decision.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (13. )Tj (For the reasons discussed in footnote 2 of this decision, the parents wa\ ived any claim of error with respect to those)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (portions of the Hearing Officer's decision which denied them elements of\ the relief)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (they sought.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (14. )Tj (In this case, DDESS does not challenge or question the authority of a He\ aring Officer to grant reimbursement in an)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (appropriate case.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (15. )Tj (DDESS takes exception with the Hearing Officer's suggestion \(Decision a\ t p. 31\) that DDESS had a duty to inform)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (the Child's parents that they might be eligible for reimbursement of exp\ enses)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (incurred for a unilateral private placement.)Tj T* (DDESS's argument is well-taken. )Tj 13.65 0 Td (The obligation of DDESS to give parents notice of their rights does not \ extend to)Tj -13.65 -1.125 Td (requiring DDESS to give them legal)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (advice about the kinds of relief that )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 29.187 0 Td (might)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( be available in a future litigation,)Tj -29.187 -1.125 Td (including the risks associated with seeking such relief.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (16. )Tj (In this regard, the Board notes the parents did not claim any relief \()Tj /TT1 1 Tf 28.38 0 Td (e.g.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, compensatory education\) in connection with)Tj -28.38 -1.125 Td (the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 school years.)Tj T* (17. )Tj (The Hearing Officer noted some of these decisions, but declined to apply\ them because no 4th Circuit decisions on)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (point had been brought to his attention \(Decision at pp. 29-30\). )Tj 25.467 0 Td (The Hearing)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Officer relied on non-4th Circuit decision)Tj -25.467 -1.125 Td (in other parts of his decision. )Tj 11.859 0 Td (Therefore, it was arbitrary for the Hearing Officer to decline to apply \ non-4th Circuit)Tj -11.859 -1.125 Td (decisions on this point.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (18. )Tj (Hard-ball tactics and adversarial approaches can be counterproductive in\ the special education context. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 42.926 0 Td (See, e.g.,)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 89 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (vacated as moot. )Tj 6.942 0 Td (The Hearing Officer's finding that the May 1996 IEP was inadequate)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (was unchallenged and will not be)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm (disturbed by the Board. )Tj 9.637 0 Td (The Hearing Officer erred by granting the parents reimbursement for any \ expenses incurred by)Tj -9.637 -1.125 Td (the parents outside the period November 18,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1996-April 21, 1997, and that relief is vacated. )Tj 36.962 0 Td (The Hearing Officer's grant)Tj -36.962 -1.125 Td (of reimbursement to the parents for allowable expenses incurred during t\ he period November 18, 1996-April 21, 1997 is)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (affirmed in the amount of $11,117.06. )Tj 15.524 0 Td (The Hearing Officer erred by granting relief that covered the period aft\ er April)Tj -15.524 -1.125 Td (21, 1997, and that relief is vacated.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Neither the Hearing Officer nor this Board retains any continuing jurisd\ iction to oversee implementation of this)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (decision. )Tj 3.833 0 Td (The Child's education should be managed by the parties pursuant to the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (provisions of 32 C.F.R. Part 80 and)Tj -3.833 -1.125 Td (any other applicable legal requirements.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (This decision results in denial of the parents' relief in whole or in pa\ rt. )Tj 28.312 0 Td (Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph F.4. of)Tj -28.312 -1.125 Td (Appendix C to 32 C.F.R. Part 80, the Board hereby advises the parents th\ at they have)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (the right, under Sections 921 )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 46.214 0 Td (et)Tj -46.214 -1.125 Td (seq.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( and Sections 1400 )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 9.416 0 Td (et seq.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( of Title 20 of the U.S. Code, to bring a civil action on the matters in\ dispute in a district)Tj -9.416 -1.125 Td (court of the United States without regard to the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (amount in controversy.)Tj T* (Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj ET 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 16 543 cm 0 0 m 113.32 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 16 518.25 Tm (Emilio Jaksetic)Tj T* (Administrative Judge)Tj T* (Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj T* (Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 16 441 cm 0 0 m 134.795 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 16 416.25 Tm (Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj T* (Administrative Judge)Tj T* (Member, Appeal Board)Tj T* (Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 16 339 cm 0 0 m 120.645 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 16 314.25 Tm (Jeffrey D. Billett)Tj T* (Administrative Judge)Tj T* (Member, Appeal Board)Tj T* (1. )Tj (The Lovaas therapy sought by the Child's parents is based on a program o\ f behavioral therapy for autistic children)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (developed by Dr. O. Ivar Lovaas of the University of California, Los Ang\ eles. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 31.575 0 Td (See,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (e.g)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 3.082 0 Td (., Exhibit 118.)Tj -34.656 -2.125 Td (2. )Tj (The parents have waived any claim of error with respect to those portion\ s of the Hearing Officer's decision that)Tj T* (denied them relief because: \(a\) they did not cross-appeal the Hearing \ Officer's decision;)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (and \(b\) their reply briefs do not)Tj T* (claim error with respect to any portion of the Hearing Officer's decisio\ n, including those portions denying them relief in)Tj T* (part.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (3. )Tj (During the proceedings below and on appeal, there have been occasions wh\ en counsel for both sides have resorted to)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (harsh language and angry rhetoric in their written submissions. )Tj 25.438 0 Td (Counsel are)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (expected to zealously represent their client's)Tj -25.438 -1.125 Td (interests within the bounds of the law. )Tj 15.498 0 Td (However, zealous advocacy does not justify failing to maintain the digni\ ty and)Tj -15.498 -1.125 Td (decorum of legal proceedings. )Tj 12.356 0 Td (Special)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (education cases often involve difficult situations that can easily evoke\ strong)Tj -12.356 -1.125 Td (opinions and emotions. )Tj 9.555 0 Td (As professionals without a personal stake in these cases, counsel have a\ n obligation to assist the)Tj -9.555 -1.125 Td (tribunals before which they appear in maintaining a basic level of civil\ ity and mutual respect. )Tj 37.599 0 Td (Vitriolic rhetoric runs the)Tj -37.599 -1.125 Td (risk of polarizing a situation to the detriment of the parties, one of w\ hom is a)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (disabled child. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 37.047 0 Td (See also)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( footnote 18.)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 87 0 obj [91 0 R] endobj 88 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (20% figure he used. )Tj (However, DDESS' contention is moot with respect to those expenses that f\ all outside the November)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm (18, 1996-April 21, 1997 period. )Tj 12.999 0 Td (Moreover, the Board does not find persuasive the DDESS argument that the\ Hearing)Tj -12.999 -1.125 Td (Officer should have limited reimbursement for supplies to the $500.00 a \ year)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (estimate given by the Child's parents. )Tj 46.335 0 Td (The)Tj -46.335 -1.125 Td (Board reaches this conclusion for reasons similar to those used to addre\ ss DDESS' argument about the $19,000-$20,000)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (a year estimate.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Board is therefore left with the dilemma of finding error by the Hea\ ring Officer, but rejecting the DDESS position)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (on the maximum amount of reimbursement the Child's parents should get fo\ r)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (supplies and other materials. )Tj 42.755 0 Td (The Board)Tj -42.755 -1.125 Td (could remand the case to the Hearing Officer for further proceedings on \ this matter. )Tj 33.737 0 Td (However, the total amount in)Tj -33.737 -1.125 Td (question is not significant. )Tj 10.805 0 Td (Our review of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Exhibit 148 and Correspondence Volume II, Tab 61 shows --- for the perio\ d)Tj -10.805 -1.125 Td (November 18, 1996-April 21, 1997 --- several items that clearly are toys\ , personal hygiene and other expenses related to)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (normal expenses of raising a child, totaling $438.98.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 285.6074 609.75 Tm (\(24\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 285.6074 609 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 301.8511 605.25 Tm ( )Tj (Accordingly, the $11,556.04 figure should be reduced by)Tj -23.821 -1.125 Td (this amount, leaving a balance of $11,117.06.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (In view of all the foregoing, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer's aw\ ard of reimbursement to the extent of)Tj 0 -1.125 TD ($11,117.06. )Tj (The Hearing Officer's reimbursement award in excess of that amount is)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (reversed. )Tj 37.696 0 Td (DDESS persuasively)Tj -37.696 -1.125 Td (argues that any non-consumable materials for which reimbursement is awar\ ded become property of the school which)Tj T* (should be turned over to DDESS.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Board now turns to the nonreimbursement relief the Hearing Officer g\ ranted to the parents. )Tj 38.542 0 Td (Because the Hearing)Tj -38.542 -1.125 Td (Officer erred by finding that the April 21, 1997 IEP was not reasonably \ calculated)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (to provide the Child with a FAPE, the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (Hearing Officer erred by granting the parents relief for the period afte\ r that IEP was offered and rejected.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Moreover, the Hearing Officer exceeded his authority by ordering relief \ that extended through July 1999. )Tj 42.402 0 Td (Even where a)Tj -42.402 -1.125 Td (party has demonstrated a denial of a FAPE that warrants relief, the Hear\ ing)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Officer does not have the authority to)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (fashion a remedy that ignores or violates statutory or regulatory requir\ ements. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 31.435 0 Td (See Consarc Corp. v. U.S. Treasury)Tj -31.435 -1.125 Td (Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 18.332 0 Td (,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (71 F.3d 909, 915 \(D.C. Cir. 1995\)\("Even a well-founded claim in equit\ y)Tj -18.332 -1.125 Td (would not suffice to override the plain effect of the law."\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 23.622 0 Td (Timken Co. v. United States)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 11.165 0 Td (, 37 F.3d 1470, 1477 \(Fed. Cir.)Tj -34.787 -1.125 Td (1994\)\(in)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (fashioning equitable relief, court should not act in manner contrary to \ statutory provision dealing with same)Tj T* (issue\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (In re Shoreline Concrete Co., Inc. v. United States)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 23.023 0 Td (, 831 F.2d 903, 905 \(9th Cir.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1987\)\(in fashioning equitable)Tj -23.023 -1.125 Td (relief, court cannot ignore express statutory language or seek to rewrit\ e statute\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 32.183 0 Td (Seguros Banvenez S.A. v. S/S Oliver)Tj -32.183 -1.125 Td (Drescher)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 761 F.2d 855, 863 \(2d Cir. 1985\) \(plain)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (mandate of law cannot be set aside because of referee's or judge's)Tj T* (invocation of equitable principles\). )Tj 14.246 0 Td (The relief granted by the Hearing Officer had the practical effect of us\ urping the)Tj -14.246 -1.125 Td (authority and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (responsibility of the CSC to periodically develop and review the Child's\ IEP \(32 C.F.R. Part 80, Appendix)Tj T* (B, Section C\) and disrupting the special education regulatory scheme.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Furthermore, the Hearing Officer's relief constituted an impermissible m\ icro management of DDESS. )Tj 40.946 0 Td (Nothing in 32)Tj -40.946 -1.125 Td (C.F.R. Part 80, Appendix C, Section D authorizes a Hearing Officer to di\ ctate to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (DDESS such matters as: which)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (consultants or professionals it should retain or hire; whether DDESS sho\ uld fund workshops \(or how many workshops)Tj T* (should be funded\); how DDESS should handle)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (travel and per diem expenses; or what particular classroom arrangements)Tj T* (that DDESS should provide. )Tj (Even if the Hearing Officer's order to DDESS to provide Lovaas therapy f\ or the Child were)Tj T* (sustainable, the proper course of action for the Hearing Officer would h\ ave been to order DDESS to provide Lovaas)Tj T* (therapy for the Child and leave the details of implementation to the CSC\ in)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (accordance with 32 C.F.R. Part 80. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 44.546 0 Td (See, e.g.,)Tj -44.546 -1.125 Td (Schuldt v. Mankato Independent School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.218 0 Td (, 937 F.2d 1357, 1360 \(8th Cir. 1991\)\(if court ordered a specific)Tj -19.218 -1.125 Td (placement without remanding case for)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (development of new IEP, it would be improperly imposing its view of pref\ erable)Tj T* (educational methods on school\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 13.191 0 Td (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.72 0 Td (, 502 U.S. 1059 \(1992\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf ( Goodall v. Stafford County School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 26.277 0 Td (, 930 F.2d)Tj -44.188 -1.125 Td (363, 367-68 \(4th Cir. 1991\)\(whether particular service or method can \ feasibly be applied in a specific special education)Tj T* (setting is a matter for school officials to determine\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 20.994 0 Td (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.72 0 Td (, 502 U.S. 864)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (\(1992\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf ( Doe v. Defendant I)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 16.831 0 Td (, 898 F.2d)Tj -42.544 -1.125 Td (1186, 1192 \(6th Cir. 1990\)\("[T]he choice of how services are to be pr\ ovided rests initially with the school."\). )Tj 43.861 0 Td (The)Tj -43.861 -1.125 Td (Hearing Officer's effort to micro manage DDESS)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (was )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 21.84 0 Td (ultra vires)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( and a clear abuse of discretion.)Tj /TT2 1 Tf -21.84 -2.125 Td (Conclusions)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 0 -2.125 TD (The Hearing Officer's findings that the Child was denied a FAPE for scho\ ol years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 are)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 91 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[285.0 607.0 301.0 618.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 86 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC BT /Article <>BDC 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 743.25 Tm (The record evidence shows that the parents told DDESS that Lovaas therap\ y would cost approximately $19,000-)Tj 0 -1.125 TD ($20,000 a year. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (See, e.g.,)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 9.996 0 Td ( Exhibit 45. )Tj 4.944 0 Td (At best, DDESS' appeal argument could be)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (construed as suggesting that estimate)Tj -14.94 -1.125 Td (should be a benchmark and any claimed expenses in excess of that estimat\ ed amount are unreasonable. )Tj 41.458 0 Td (However, the)Tj -41.458 -1.125 Td (Board declines to rule that any expenses in)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (excess of that estimate were unreasonable, as a matter of law, or that t\ he)Tj T* (Hearing Officer had no option but to disallow any expenses in excess of \ that estimate. )Tj 34.657 0 Td (While DDESS' concerns on this)Tj -34.657 -1.125 Td (point are)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (not frivolous, they are too generalized and not specific enough to demon\ strate the Hearing Officer committed)Tj T* (error by not restricting any reimbursement relief to amounts falling wit\ hin the $19,000-$20,000 a year estimate.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (DDESS makes several arguments to challenge the Hearing Officer's grant o\ f reimbursement for therapy costs: \(a\) the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (therapy costs exceeded those that would be expected in light of the $19,\ 000-$20,000)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (estimate the parents gave to)Tj T* (DDESS concerning Lovaas therapy; \(b\) some of the )Tj 21.105 0 Td (monthly therapy costs listed by the parents were excessive in light)Tj -21.105 -1.125 Td (of the number of hours of therapy the Child received)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (and the hourly rate which the therapists were paid; and \(c\) after)Tj T* (February 1997, the parents increased the amount of weekly therapy the Ch\ ild received by 3 hours above the amount of)Tj T* (therapy which the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Lovaas consultant recommended.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The first argument is a variation of DDESS' general argument about the s\ ignificance of the $19,000-$20,000 estimate)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (concerning the anticipated costs of Lovaas therapy. )Tj 20.77 0 Td (The Board's earlier discussion)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (of that estimate applies here with)Tj -20.77 -1.125 Td (equal force.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The second argument is rendered partially moot for those months outside \ the period November 18, 1996-April 21, 1997.)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (For the months of November 1996-February 1997, the monthly average of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (therapy costs claimed by the parents is $978,)Tj T* (which is only $18 above the $960 monthly average DDESS claims would be r\ easonable for the period. )Tj 41.379 0 Td (For the months)Tj -41.379 -1.125 Td (of March 1997-April 1997, the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (monthly average of therapy costs claimed by the parents is $1,672.13, wh\ ich is about)Tj T* ($296 above the $1,376 monthly average DDESS claims would be reasonable f\ or the period. )Tj 36.991 0 Td (The difference of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC ($664.25)Tj -36.991 -1.125 Td (for the November 1996-April 1997 period \(about $110.70 a month\) is not\ very significant.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The third argument is persuasive in part. )Tj 16.44 0 Td (The parents could not reasonably expect to be reimbursed for hours of th\ erapy)Tj -16.44 -1.125 Td (that exceeded the amount recommended by their Lovaas consultant. However\ , as)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (discussed in the preceding paragraph,)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (accepting for purposes of this appeal DDESS' calculations, the effect of\ this excess therapy for the time period March)Tj T* (1997-April 1997 translated into a difference)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (of about $296 a month between the amount claimed by the parents and the)Tj T* (amount DDESS asserts would be reasonable.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The record evidence is not sufficiently developed to enable to Board to \ conclude, as a matter of law, that the Hearing)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (Officer erred by not reducing the award of reimbursed therapy costs to t\ he amounts)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (DDESS argues are reasonable. )Tj 46.123 0 Td (The)Tj -46.123 -1.125 Td (Board could remand the case to the Hearing Officer for further proceedin\ gs to address that issue. )Tj 38.958 0 Td (However, such a)Tj -38.958 -1.125 Td (course of action would serve little useful purpose)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (at the expense of significant countervailing interests and)Tj T* (considerations. )Tj 6.276 0 Td (Specifically, for the period November 1996-April 1997, there is a $664.2\ 5 difference between the)Tj -6.276 -1.125 Td (amount of therapy costs)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (claimed by the Child's parents and the amount that DDESS contends would \ be a reasonable)Tj T* (amount. )Tj 3.5 0 Td (On remand, the Child's parents might be able to present evidence that co\ uld persuade the Hearing)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Officer to)Tj -3.5 -1.125 Td (award them some or all of that $664.25 difference, or they might fail to\ offer evidence that proved persuasive. )Tj 44.262 0 Td (In either)Tj -44.262 -1.125 Td (event, the administrative costs of a remand \(with the possibility of ye\ t)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (another appeal\) and the costs of legal)Tj T* (representation by both sides would easily exceed the $664.25 in question\ . )Tj 29.688 0 Td (Neither the interest in the fair and prompt)Tj -29.688 -1.125 Td (resolution of special education cases nor the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (interests of the Child would be served by the delay and expense such a)Tj T* (remand would produce. )Tj 9.719 0 Td (Considering the particular facts of this case, applying the legal princi\ ple that there is no)Tj -9.719 -1.125 Td (presumption of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (error below, and taking into account the equitable principle of consider\ ing the equities, the relative)Tj T* (positions of the parties, and the relative potential hardships \(27A Am.\ Jur. 2d )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 31.105 0 Td (Equity)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 2.61 0 Td ( Section 102\), the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Board concludes)Tj -33.715 -1.125 Td (the most equitable course of action on this matter would be decline to r\ emand the case for further proceedings and not)Tj T* (reduce the amount of reimbursement by the $664.25 difference in)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (therapy costs.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (DDESS also contends the Hearing Officer erred by finding that the parent\ s were not entitled to be reimbursed for toys,)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (personal hygiene materials, and other expenses related to the normal exp\ enses of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (raising a child, but then reducing the)Tj T* (amount of reimbursement requested for such items by 20%. )Tj 24.161 0 Td (DDESS argues the 20% figure used by the Hearing Officer)Tj -24.161 -1.125 Td (is arbitrary and capricious. )Tj 10.913 0 Td (The Board)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (agrees because the Hearing Officer gave no explanation or justification \ for the)Tj EMC ET endstream endobj 84 0 obj [92 0 R 93 0 R] endobj 85 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 751.5 Tm (The Board rejects the suggestion by DDESS that the parents also are not \ entitled to reimbursement because it was not)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (until July 7, 1997 that they put the school on notice that they were see\ king)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (reimbursement \(Respondent's Statement of)Tj T* (Issues and Arguments at pp. 106-07 n.94\). )Tj (The November 18, 1996 letter served its purpose of placing DDESS on)Tj T* (reasonable notice that the parents were)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (contending their son was not being provided with a FAPE. )Tj 39.462 0 Td (The purpose of such)Tj -39.462 -1.125 Td (notice is to )Tj 4.638 0 Td (give DDESS an opportunity to communicate with the parents to discuss and\ try to resolve the matter in a)Tj -4.638 -1.125 Td (cooperative manner, not to lock the parents into a litigating posture. )Tj 27.354 0 Td (The practical effect of the DDESS suggestion)Tj -27.354 -1.125 Td (would be to discourage parents from communicating their concerns or prob\ lems to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (DDESS for fear that such)Tj T* (communications could be become potential snares if not carefully worded \ and artfully drafted. )Tj 38.042 0 Td (The Board declines to)Tj -38.042 -1.125 Td (accept the DDESS suggestion. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 12.47 0 Td (Cf. Combs v. School)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Board of Rockingham County)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 20.304 0 Td (, 15 F.3d 357, 364 \(4th Cir. 1994\))Tj -32.774 -1.125 Td (\(court should refrain from granting relief that would encourage potenti\ al litigants and their attorneys to pursue legal)Tj T* (claims prior to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (attempting simpler resolution of problems under the "careful construct o\ f the IDEA"\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Once the parents notified DDESS, through the November 18, 1996 letter, t\ hat they felt their son was being denied a)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (FAPE, DDESS was on fair notice that there was a claim of a denial of a F\ APE. )Tj 31.91 0 Td (DDESS's responsibility to take)Tj -31.91 -1.125 Td (reasonable steps to respond to the parents' concerns or face possible li\ ability for denial of a FAPE began with that)Tj T* (notice.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (In view of the foregoing discussion, the Board concludes the period for \ which the parents were entitled to claim)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (reimbursement covers the period November 18, 1996 through April 21, 1997\ . )Tj 31.327 0 Td (The)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Hearing Officer erred to the extent he)Tj -31.327 -1.125 Td (granted the parents reimbursement for any expenses incurred outside that\ time period.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (DDESS correctly notes that money damages are not an available form of re\ lief in these proceedings. )Tj 40.403 0 Td (DoDDS Case No.)Tj -40.403 -1.125 Td (97-E-001 \(December 2, 1997\) at p. 12. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 15.773 0 Td (See also Fort Zumwalt School District v.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Clynes)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.276 0 Td (, 119 F.3d 607, 615 \(8th Cir.)Tj -35.049 -1.125 Td (1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Charlie F. v. Board of Education of Skokie School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 26.274 0 Td (, 98 F.3d 989, 991 \(7th Cir. 1996\). )Tj (However, the)Tj -26.274 -1.125 Td (Board rejects the DDESS argument that the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Hearing Officer's award of reimbursement is an attempt to impermissibly)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (compensate the parents for their fundraising efforts. )Tj 20.993 0 Td (The Hearing Officer expressly stated that "[c]ompensation for the)Tj -20.993 -1.125 Td (parental)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (time expended in raising funds to pay for a unilateral private placement\ may not be awarded" \(Decision at p.)Tj T* (33\). )Tj (There is a rebuttable presumption that administrative officials act in g\ ood faith. )Tj 33.795 0 Td (Absent)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (strong evidence to the)Tj -33.795 -1.125 Td (contrary, the Board will not accept an argument that the Hearing Officer\ does not mean what he expressly states in his)Tj T* (decision. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 3.833 0 Td (See Lenn v. Portland School Committee)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 15.941 0 Td (, 998 F.2d)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1083, 1087-88 \(1st Cir. 1993\)\(party has heavy burden of)Tj -19.774 -1.125 Td (persuasion on appeal if it asserts the judge below "indulg[ed] in the ad\ judicatory equivalent of a shell game"\))Tj /TT1 1 Tf 43.665 0 Td ( )Tj /TT0 1 Tf (. )Tj (DDESS')Tj -43.665 -1.125 Td (argument falls far short)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (of demonstrating the Hearing Officer's statement was a mere sham.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Board rejects DDESS' assertion that the Hearing Officer erred by gra\ nting the Child's parents reimbursement)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (because the parents did not have any out-of-pocket expenses. )Tj 24.713 0 Td (A review of the record)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (evidence shows that the parents)Tj -24.713 -1.125 Td (incurred expenses in excess of the $37,029.71 they obtained through fund\ raising. )Tj 32.714 0 Td (It follows that some of the expenses)Tj -32.714 -1.125 Td (incurred were paid by the parents out of their own)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (funds. )Tj 22.993 0 Td (It is untenable for DDESS to baldly assert, without any support)Tj -22.993 -1.125 Td (in the record evidence, that the parents incurred no out-of-pocket expen\ ses. )Tj 30.349 0 Td (The Board declines to attempt )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 12.302 0 Td (sua sponte)Tj /TT0 1 Tf -42.651 -1.125 Td (any)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (apportionment or proration of the expenses for which the parents may be \ reimbursed. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 36.072 0 Td (Cf. Clovis Unified School)Tj -36.072 -1.125 Td (District v. California Office of Administrative Hearings)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 22.249 0 Td (, 903 F.2d 635, 642 n.3 \(9th Cir.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1990\)\(appellate court declining)Tj -22.249 -1.125 Td (to address possibility of apportioning costs in special education case w\ hen none of parties raised apportionment of costs)Tj T* (as an issue\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (As discussed earlier, the Hearing Officer erred to the extent that he gr\ anted the parents reimbursement for any expenses)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (incurred outside the period of November 18, 1996 through April 21, 1997.\ )Tj 30.022 0 Td (A)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (review of the record evidence shows the)Tj -30.022 -1.375 Td (parents claimed expenses during that period which total $14, 258.79.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 346.5859 153 Tm (\(22\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 346.5859 152.25 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 362.8296 148.5 Tm ( )Tj (That amount must, of course be reduced by)Tj -28.902 -1.125 Td ($2,702.75 for expenses during that period)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (that were specifically disallowed by the Hearing Officer \(Decision at p\ p. 32-)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (34\) that were not subject to any cross-appeal.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 233.2598 123 Tm (\(23\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 233.2598 122.25 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 249.5034 118.5 Tm ( )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (See)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( footnote 2 of this decision.)Tj -19.459 -2.125 Td (There remains the issue whether the $11,556.04 balance must be reduced f\ urther based on other arguments raised by)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (DDESS with respect to certain types or kinds of expenses. )Tj 23.579 0 Td (Specifically, DDESS)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (contends the Hearing Officer erred by)Tj -23.579 -1.125 Td (reimbursing the parents for expenses that exceeded the $19,000-$20,000 p\ er year estimate made by the parents,)Tj T* (excessive or unreasonable therapy costs, and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (excessive and unreasonable expenses for program materials and supplies.)Tj ET q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 12 0 0 12 16 39 Tm (The Board will address each category in turn.)Tj ET EMC Q endstream endobj 92 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[346.0 150.0 362.0 161.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 93 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[233.0 120.0 249.0 131.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 44 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 9/Type/Page>> endobj 94 0 obj [96 0 R 97 0 R 98 0 R 99 0 R 100 0 R] endobj 95 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (DDESS also contends the Hearing Officer erred by awarding the parents re\ imbursement for costs incurred before)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm (November 18, 1996, the date of the letter by which the parents informed \ DDESS of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (their dissatisfaction with the Child's)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (education. )Tj 4.387 0 Td (This contention is well-founded.)Tj -4.387 -2.125 Td (The IDEA requires the cooperation of schools and parents. )Tj 23.77 0 Td (While the IDEA imposes many duties and obligations on)Tj -23.77 -1.125 Td (schools, parents also have some obligations and could waive their right \ to relief if)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (they fail to satisfy those obligations.)Tj /TT1 1 Tf T* (See, e.g., Wise v. Ohio Department of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.384 0 Td (, 80 F.3d 177, 182 \(6th Cir. 1996\)\("Parents who neglect to follow the\ )Tj -19.384 -1.125 Td (grievance procedures set forth in 20 U.S.C.A.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (\2471415 may render their children ineligible for free appropriate publi\ c)Tj T* (education."\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 5.406 0 Td (Salley v. St. Tammany Parish School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 17.498 0 Td (, 57 F.3d 458, 463 \(5th Cir. 1995\)\(school cannot be found to)Tj -22.904 -1.125 Td (have violated)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (IDEA by not evaluating child when parents unilaterally remove child from\ )Tj 35.739 0 Td (school and severed all lines of)Tj -35.739 -1.125 Td (communication with school officials\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 15.497 0 Td (Combs v. School Board of Rockingham County)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 18.859 0 Td (, 15 F.3d)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (357, 363-64 \(4th Cir.)Tj -34.355 -1.125 Td (1994\)\("School boards must be given adequate notice of problems if they\ are to remedy them, and must be given)Tj T* (sufficient time to respond to those problems before they can be held)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (liable for failure to act."\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf 37.646 0 Td ( Amann v. Stow School)Tj -37.646 -1.125 Td (System)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 982 F.2d 644, 651 \(1st Cir. 1992\)\(unilateral action by parents with\ out making challenge to IEP may relieve)Tj T* (school of obligation to develop and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (implement new IEP for child\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 26.855 0 Td (Cordrey v. Euckert)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 7.636 0 Td (, 917 F.2d 1460, 1466 \(6th Cir.)Tj -34.492 -1.125 Td (1990\)\(parental failure to operate within procedural framework of IDEA \ could result in waiver of right to procedurally)Tj T* (correct IEP meeting\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 8.83 0 Td (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.72 0 Td (, 499 U.S. 938 \(1991\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hudson v. Wilson)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 828 F.2d 1059, 1065 \(4th Cir. 1987\))Tj -13.55 -1.125 Td (\(parental refusal to cooperate with a school may be considered in decid\ ing whether they)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (should be granted)Tj T* (reimbursement\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Indeed, several courts have held that parents have the obligation to pla\ ce a school on reasonable notice that they)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (challenge the adequacy of an IEP or placement before they can expect to \ be reimbursed)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (for unilaterally placing the child)Tj T* (elsewhere. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Bernardsville Board of Education v. J.H.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 20.939 0 Td (, 42 F.3d 149, 159-60 \(3d Cir. 1994\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Ash v. Lake Oswego School)Tj -20.939 -1.125 Td (District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 980 F.2d 585, 589 \(9th Cir. 1992\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Evans)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (v. District No. 17 of Douglas County)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 35.027 0 Td (, 841 F.2d 824, 831-32 \(8th Cir.)Tj -35.027 -1.125 Td (1988\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Garland Independent School District v. Wilks)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 21.135 0 Td (, 657 F.Supp. 1163, 1167-68 \(N.D. Tex. 1987\). However, if the)Tj -21.135 -1.125 Td (parents' failure to notify a school was a direct result of a school's fa\ ilure to comply with procedural safeguards, then the)Tj T* (lack of parental notice will not operate as a waiver of the right to rei\ mbursement. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 32.655 0 Td (Hall v. Vance)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (County Board of)Tj -32.655 -1.125 Td (Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.11 0 Td (, 774 F.2d 629, 633-34 n.4 \(4th Cir. 1985\). Of course, once parents pl\ ace a school on notice of their objections)Tj -4.11 -1.125 Td (to an IEP or placement, then the school has the obligation to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (address those objections in nondilatory manner. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 43.712 0 Td (Rapid City)Tj -43.712 -1.125 Td (School District v. Vahle)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 9.554 0 Td (, 922 F.2d 476, 478 \(8th Cir. 1990\). )Tj (The reasoning of these cases is persuasive and is applicable)Tj -9.554 -1.375 Td (in these)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (proceedings.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 116.9688 354.75 Tm (\(17\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 116.9688 354 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 324.75 Tm (In this case, the parents were not satisfied that the May 1996 IEP would\ provide their son with a FAPE. )Tj 41.659 0 Td (Despite that)Tj -41.659 -1.125 Td (dissatisfaction, it was not until November 18, 1996 \(Exhibit 45 and Hea\ ring)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Transcript at p. 1041\) that they notified)Tj T* (DDESS that they believed the May 1996 IEP was inadequate and would not p\ rovide their son with a FAPE. )Tj 43.382 0 Td (The)Tj -43.382 -1.125 Td (Hearing Officer's finding that the parents did not)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (act in bad faith is sustainable, but it is irrelevant. )Tj 39.392 0 Td (Even in the absence)Tj -39.392 -1.125 Td (of bad faith, parents who believe an IEP or a placement is inadequate or\ inappropriate for their child have an obligation)Tj T* (to give)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (DDESS reasonable notice of their concerns. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 20.855 0 Td (Bernardsville Board of Education v. J.H.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 16.441 0 Td (, 42 F.3d 149, 159-60 \(3d)Tj -37.296 -1.125 Td (Cir. 1994\). )Tj (To hold otherwise would seriously undermine the cooperation and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (communication between schools and)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (parents needed to give IDEA and the DoD special education regulation a c\ hance to work.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 444.8418 231.75 Tm (\(18\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 444.8418 231 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 201.75 Tm (Nothing in the record indicates that the parents' delay in notifying DDE\ SS was the direct result of any procedural failure)Tj T* (by DDESS.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 72.0098 189.75 Tm (\(19\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 72.0098 189 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 88.2534 185.25 Tm ( )Tj (Moreover, the Child's mother was not a novice or newcomer to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (dealing with DDESS,)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 500.9995 189.75 Tm (\(20\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 500.9995 189 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 517.2432 185.25 Tm ( and the parents)Tj -41.77 -1.125 Td (received notice of their procedural rights on various occasions. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 25.38 0 Td (See, e.g.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 3.332 0 Td (, Exhibits 9 and 22. )Tj 8.027 0 Td (The parents could not)Tj -36.739 -1.125 Td (reasonably expect the school to be clairvoyant)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (and able to discern their intention to challenge the adequacy of the May\ )Tj T* (1996 IEP. )Tj (The Board cannot sustain the Hearing Officer's implicit finding that DDE\ SS knew or should have known)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 571.3926 146.25 Tm (\(21\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 571.3926 145.5 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 128.25 Tm (about the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (parents' disagreement with the May 1996 IEP because the school knew the \ Child was absent from school)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (\(Decision at p. 30\). )Tj 7.942 0 Td (Considering the multitude of reasons why a child may be absent from)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (school, it was not reasonable)Tj -7.942 -1.125 Td (for the Hearing Officer to conclude DDESS should somehow have known the \ Child's absence was due to the parents')Tj T* (intent to challenge the adequacy of the May 1996 IEP. )Tj 22.021 0 Td (oreover, the expressions of enthusiasm for Lovaas therapy made)Tj -22.021 -1.125 Td (by the Child's mother in the presence of DDESS personnel fall short of g\ iving DDESS reasonable notice of the parents')Tj T* (intent to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (challenge the May 1996 IEP and the placement of the Child. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 27.993 0 Td (See also)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( Hearing Transcript at p. 1040 \(testimony)Tj -27.993 -1.125 Td (of Child's mother on reasons why she waited before asking DDESS to imple\ ment Lovaas)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (therapy for Child\).)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 14 0 obj <> endobj 40 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 5/Type/Page>> endobj 41 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 6/Type/Page>> endobj 42 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 7/Type/Page>> endobj 43 0 obj <>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 8/Type/Page>> endobj 106 0 obj [108 0 R 109 0 R 110 0 R 111 0 R 112 0 R] endobj 107 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (Hearing Officer could not find, based on the preponderance of the eviden\ ce, that Lovaas therapy was an acknowledged)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 738.75 Tm (methodology that could be appropriate for)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (certain children, including the Child.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 398.5586 743.25 Tm (\(12\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 398.5586 742.5 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 414.8022 738.75 Tm ( )Tj (As the parents correctly note)Tj -33.234 -1.125 Td (\(Petitioners' Second Reply to Respondent's Statement of Issues and Argu\ ments at p. 28\), for purposes of reimbursement,)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (an)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (alternate placement need not be perfect. )Tj 17.379 0 Td (Even if DDESS can point to evidence that the Lovaas therapy has not been\ )Tj -17.379 -1.125 Td (totally effective in achieving some of the goals set for the Child )Tj 25.715 0 Td (that does not mean)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (reimbursement is barred. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 17.995 0 Td (See Alamo)Tj -43.709 -1.125 Td (Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 25.912 0 Td (, 790 F.2d 1153, 1161 \(5th Cir. 1986\)\(parents do not)Tj -25.912 -1.125 Td (have to show the interim placement was "the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (exact proper placement" before they can receive reimbursement\). )Tj 44.547 0 Td (In this)Tj -44.547 -1.125 Td (case, the Hearing Officer's decision addressed the LRE concerns raised b\ y DDESS about the parents' provision of)Tj T* (Lovaas)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (therapy to the Child at home and found those concerns to be unpersuasive\ . )Tj 33.186 0 Td (Considering the record as a whole,)Tj -33.186 -1.125 Td (the Board concludes DDESS has failed to demonstrate the Hearing Officer'\ s findings and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (conclusions on this point were)Tj T* (arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (3. )Tj (Whether the Hearing Officer erred by finding that the Child was entitled\ to reimbursement and other relief)Tj ET 0 G q 1 0 0 1 28 591 cm 0 0 m 511.148 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 539.1484 591.75 Tm (. )Tj (The)Tj -43.596 -1.125 Td (Hearing Officer granted the parents reimbursement in the sum of $34,221.\ 12 for)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (various expenses incurred by the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (parents in connection with their efforts to provide Lovaas therapy for t\ heir Child. )Tj 32.713 0 Td (The Hearing Officer denied the)Tj -32.713 -1.125 Td (parents some of the relief they requested, and denied)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (them reimbursement for approximately $43,600 worth of other)Tj T* (expenses for which they had requested reimbursement. )Tj 22.215 0 Td (The Hearing Officer also directed DDESS to pay for)Tj -22.215 -1.125 Td (continuation of the Child's)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Lovaas therapy through the end of July 1999, with various detailed condi\ tions attached.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (With respect to the reimbursement awarded by the Hearing Officer, DDESS \ contends the Hearing Officer erred)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (because: \(a\) the Child was not denied a FAPE; \(b\) the award of reimb\ ursement to the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (parents is not fair and equitable)Tj T* (because they have not expended their personal funds to provide for the C\ hild's in-house Lovaas therapy; and \(c\) the)Tj T* (award of reimbursement is an attempt to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (impermissibly compensate the parents for their fundraising efforts. )Tj 43.376 0 Td (DDESS)Tj -43.376 -1.125 Td (contends, in the alternative, that even if the parents are entitled to s\ ome reimbursement, the Hearing Officer erred in)Tj T* (awarding)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (relief to the parents because he abused his discretion and failed to tak\ e into account several relevant)Tj T* (considerations. )Tj 6.276 0 Td (With respect to the other relief awarded to the parents, DDESS contends \ the Hearing)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Officer: \(a\))Tj -6.276 -1.125 Td (exceeded his authority; \(b\) fashioned relief that constitutes an imper\ missible micro management of DDESS; and \(c\))Tj T* (lacked authority to award the parents relief beyond the 1997-1998 school\ )Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (year. )Tj 31.739 0 Td (For the reasons that follow, the Board)Tj -31.739 -1.375 Td (concludes that the relief granted by the Hearing Officer must be affirme\ d in part and reversed in part.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 501.8008 378.75 Tm (\(13\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG q 1 0 0 1 501.8008 378 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 348.75 Tm (The Supreme Court has held that federal courts could, under appropriate \ circumstances, grant reimbursement to parents)Tj T* (under the IDEA. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Department of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Education of Massachusetts)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 41.773 0 Td (, 471 U.S. 359,)Tj -41.773 -1.125 Td (369-70 \(1985\). )Tj (However, in doing so, the Supreme Court cautioned that parents who unila\ terally change their child's)Tj T* (placement without the consent of school)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (officials do so at their own financial risk. )Tj 33.075 0 Td (471 U.S. at 373-74. )Tj (In 1993, the)Tj -33.075 -1.125 Td (Supreme Court reiterated its warning from )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 17.273 0 Td (Burlington)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.333 0 Td ( about financial risk and further stated "[parents] are entitled to)Tj -21.606 -1.125 Td (reimbursement )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 6.248 0 Td (only)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated th\ e IDEA, and that the private)Tj -6.248 -1.125 Td (school placement was proper under the Act." )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 18.235 0 Td (Florence County School District)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Four v. Carter)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.136 0 Td (, 510 U.S. 7, 15 \(1993\))Tj -37.372 -1.375 Td (\(italics in original\).)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 108.3086 255.75 Tm (\(14\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 108.3086 255 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 124.5522 251.25 Tm ( )Tj (The Board has noted that "[d]ecisions by lower federal courts illustrate\ that reimbursement is not)Tj -9.046 -1.125 Td (a simple or automatic option available to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (parents who decide to act unilaterally in obtaining alternative educatio\ nal)Tj T* (services for their children. )Tj 10.746 0 Td (While parents are free to decide whether to expend their own money to ob\ tain additional)Tj -10.746 -1.125 Td (educational)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (services or benefits for their children, they should not do so under any\ illusion that they can act unilaterally)Tj T* (and receive reimbursement from DoDDS as a matter of right." )Tj 25.206 0 Td (DoDDS Case No. 97-E-001)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (\(December 2, 1997\) at p. 13)Tj -25.206 -1.375 Td (\(citations omitted\).)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 107.3125 185.25 Tm (\(15\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 107.3125 184.5 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 155.25 Tm (On its face, the Hearing Officer's unchallenged finding that the May 199\ 6 IEP was inadequate would support a finding)Tj T* (that the Child was denied a FAPE for the 1996-1997 school year, thereby)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (justifying consideration of the parent's claim)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (for relief for the 1996-1997 school year.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 208.9316 129.75 Tm (\(16\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 208.9316 129 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 225.1753 125.25 Tm ( )Tj (However, the finding of a denial of a FAPE does not give rise to a right\ to)Tj -17.431 -1.125 Td (open-ended relief. )Tj 7.524 0 Td (Once a denial of a)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (FAPE has been remedied, then relief must be fashioned or adjusted accord\ ingly. )Tj 39.903 0 Td (In)Tj -47.427 -1.125 Td (this case, once DDESS offered the April 21, 1997 IEP \(which was reasona\ bly calculated to provide a FAPE for the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (Child\), the parents' right to reimbursement and other relief stopped ac\ cruing. )Tj 30.921 0 Td (On this point, the argument by DDESS is)Tj -30.921 -1.125 Td (persuasive. )Tj (In short, the maximum period of time for which the parents were)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (entitled to reimbursement was the period)Tj T* (from the end of the 1995-1996 school year to April 21, 1997.)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 108 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[399.0 741.0 415.0 752.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 109 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[501.0 376.0 517.0 387.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 110 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[108.0 253.0 124.0 264.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 111 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[107.0 183.0 123.0 194.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 112 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[209.0 127.0 225.0 138.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 104 0 obj [113 0 R 114 0 R] endobj 105 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 756 Tm (calculated to provide the child with)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (more than trivial or meaningless benefit. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 30.852 0 Td (County of San Diego v. California Special)Tj ET Q BT 0 g /TT1 1 Tf 12 0 0 12 16 742.5 Tm (Education Hearing Office)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 10.387 0 Td (, 93 F.3d 1458, 1467 \(9th Cir. 1996\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf ( Carlisle Area School v. Scott P.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 27.748 0 Td (, 62 F.3d 520, 534 \(3d)Tj -38.135 -1.125 Td (Cir. 1995\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 9.331 0 Td (, 116 S.Ct. 1419 \(1996\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hall v. Vance County Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 26.692 0 Td (, 774 F.2d 629, 636 \(4th Cir.)Tj -36.023 -1.125 Td (1985\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (As the Hearing Officer noted \(Decision at p. 23\), the heart of the dis\ pute over the April 21, 1997 IEP was the insistence)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (of the parents that DDESS provide complete Lovaas therapy for the Child \ and the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (decision of the CSC that complete)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (Lovaas therapy was not required for the Child.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 239.9336 664.5 Tm (\(10\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 239.9336 663.75 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 256.1772 660 Tm ( )Tj (The Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions about the adequacy of)Tj -20.015 -1.125 Td (the April 21, 1997 cannot be sustained)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (because they are based on several legal errors that fatally undermine th\ ose)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (findings and conclusions.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Hearing Officer erred by failing to give appropriate deference to th\ e educational professionals who developed the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (April 21, 1997 IEP and would be responsible for providing the Child with\ a FAPE. )Tj 33.469 0 Td (When faced with a choosing)Tj -33.469 -1.125 Td (between different educational methodologies, the CSC must evaluate the d\ ifferent methodologies and make often)Tj T* (difficult decisions to select which methodology to use to)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (provide an appropriate education for the child in question,)Tj T* (relying on their judgment and experience in educational matters. )Tj 26.046 0 Td (In this case, the Hearing Officer failed to give due)Tj -26.046 -1.125 Td (deference to the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (professional judgment and expertise of the CSC in deciding what educatio\ nal methodology was)Tj T* (appropriate for the Child. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 10.414 0 Td (See also Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 21.692 0 Td (, 852 )Tj (F.2d 290, 297 \(7th)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Cir. 1988\))Tj -32.105 -1.125 Td (\(parents do not have right to compel school to provide specific program\ or use a specific methodology\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 41.766 0 Td (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.72 0 Td (,)Tj -46.486 -1.125 Td (488 U.S. 925 \(1988\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Hearing Officer erred by comparing the April 21, 1997 IEP with the L\ ovaas therapy sought by the Child's parents)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (and concluding the April 21, 1997 IEP was inadequate because he believed\ that)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Lovaas therapy would be a better)Tj T* (educational methodology. )Tj 10.636 0 Td (As discussed earlier, such a comparative analysis is not the proper way \ to assess the adequacy)Tj -10.636 -1.125 Td (of an IEP.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Hearing Officer erred by finding the April 21, 1997 IEP inadequate b\ ecause he believed it would not provide the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (Child with maximum or optimum benefit. )Tj 17.026 0 Td (As discussed earlier, the Hearing Officer)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (erred by holding that DDESS must)Tj -17.026 -1.125 Td (comply with North Carolina law. )Tj 13.498 0 Td (Accordingly, the Hearing Officer could not rely on his interpretation of\ North Carolina)Tj -13.498 -1.125 Td (law to require DDESS to provide the Child)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (with maximum or optimum benefit. )Tj 32.051 0 Td (In addition, the Hearing Officer erred by)Tj -32.051 -1.125 Td (concluding the April 21, 1997 IEP was inadequate under the )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 24.411 0 Td (Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 2.943 0 Td ( standard. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 7.081 0 Td ( does not require a school to)Tj -34.435 -1.125 Td (provide)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (a disabled child with the maximum or best possible education. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 28.494 0 Td (See )Tj /TT0 1 Tf (458 U.S. at 200-01. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (See also Hartmann v.)Tj -28.494 -1.125 Td (Loudon County Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 14.333 0 Td (, 118 F.3d 996, 1004 \(4th Cir. 1997\)\()Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf /Span<>> BDC 17.804 0 Td ( )Tj EMC ("admoni[shes] that the IDEA does not)Tj -32.137 -1.125 Td (guarantee the ideal educational opportunity for every disabled child"\).\ )Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Furthermore, the April 21, 1997 IEP was not merely a repetition of the M\ ay 1996 IEP, which the Hearing Officer had)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (found to be inadequate.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 128.6289 276 Tm (\(11\))Tj ET q 1 0 0 1 128.6289 275.25 cm 0 0 m 16.244 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 144.8726 271.5 Tm ( )Tj (Rather, the April 21, 1997 IEP \(as understood in the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (context of the minutes of the CSC)Tj -10.739 -1.125 Td (meetings and testimony about those meetings\) reflected significant modi\ fications and changes made to address concerns)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (expressed by the Child's mother after)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (submission of the November 18, 1996 letter. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 33.201 0 Td (See, e.g.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 3.332 0 Td (, Exhibits 67, 68, 70, 71 and)Tj -36.533 -1.125 Td (101; Hearing Transcript at pp. 371-74, 652-53, 666-68, 1042-45, 1116-17.\ )Tj 0 -2.125 TD (\(E\) )Tj (Propriety of Lovaas therapy)Tj ET 0 G q 1 0 0 1 34.3223 204.75 cm 0 0 m 134.291 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 168.6133 205.5 Tm (. )Tj (The Hearing Officer found the Child made "remarkable progress" with Lova\ as therapy,)Tj -12.718 -1.125 Td (and concluded that Lovaas therapy at home was a proper placement for the\ )Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Child and it was the least restrictive)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (environment \(LRE\) for the Child "based upon his individual capabilitie\ s and needs." )Tj 34.059 0 Td (DDESS contends the Hearing)Tj -34.059 -1.125 Td (Officer erred because: \(1\) the Hearing Officer)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (used an incorrect standard in evaluating the adequacy of the education)Tj T* (DDESS provided to the Child; \(2\) the Child made meaningful progress pr\ ior to the time he was unilaterally removed)Tj T* (from the)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (DDESS school; \(3\) the Child did not suffer significant regression duri\ ng the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 school)Tj T* (years; and \(4\) the Hearing Officer disregarded the Child's right to be\ educated in the LRE.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Most of DDESS' arguments have been discussed earlier this decision or ha\ ve been rendered moot by the Board's rulings.)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (What remains is DDESS' argument that the Hearing Officer disregarded the\ )Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Child's right to be educated in the LRE.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (For the reasons discussed earlier, the Hearing Officer erred by ruling t\ hat DDESS was denying the Child a FAPE)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (because it would not provide the Child with a complete Lovaas therapy pr\ ogram. )Tj 32.658 0 Td (However, it does not follow that the)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 113 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[240.0 662.0 256.0 673.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 114 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[129.0 273.0 145.0 284.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 103 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm (was reasonably calculated to provide the Child with meaningful education\ al benefit. )Tj 33.934 0 Td (Accordingly, the Board must)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm (consider whether the Hearing Officer's)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (finding that the April 21, 1997 IEP did not propose a FAPE is sustainabl\ e.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The Board reads the Hearing Officer's analysis of the adequacy of the Ap\ ril 21, 1997 IEP as being based on the)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (substantive, not procedural, aspects of that IEP. )Tj 19.273 0 Td (That approach by the Hearing Officer is)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (permissible because even if)Tj -19.273 -1.125 Td (there has been compliance with the procedural safeguards \(or a finding \ that any procedural defect was harmless in)Tj T* (nature\), the Hearing Officer must consider the second)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (prong of the )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 26.879 0 Td (Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 2.943 0 Td ( standard: whether the IEP developed through)Tj -29.823 -1.125 Td (the procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive e\ ducational benefit.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (The adequacy of an IEP must be determined on a case-by-case basis. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 27.795 0 Td (Lenn v. Portland School Committee)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 14.304 0 Td (, 998 F.2d)Tj -42.099 -1.125 Td (1083, 1087 \(1st Cir. 1993\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (JSK v. Hendry County School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 25.803 0 Td (, 941 F.2d 1563,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1573 \(11th Cir. 1991\). )Tj (Although the)Tj -25.803 -1.125 Td (adequacy of an IEP must be determined after careful consideration of the\ particular facts and circumstances of each)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (case, the Hearing Officer's analysis must take)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (into account, and be consistent with, applicable legal principles. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 44.277 0 Td (Cf. Board)Tj -44.277 -1.125 Td (of Education of Community High School District No. 218 v. Illinois State\ Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 37.386 0 Td (, 103 F.3d 545, 549 \(7th)Tj -37.386 -1.125 Td (Cir.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1996\)\("[W]hile the jurisprudence in this area has been driven by the f\ acts of each case, our approach need not be)Tj T* (unguided."\). )Tj (On review, the Board must consider whether the Hearing Officer's finding\ s)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (and conclusions about the April)Tj T* (21, 1997 IEP are supported by the preponderance of the evidence and are \ consistent with pertinent legal principles.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (First, as discussed earlier in this decision, the party challenging the \ adequacy of an IEP has the burden of proof.)Tj T* (Second, the Hearing Officer must give appropriate deference to the educa\ tional professionals who develop the IEP and)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (are responsible for providing a FAPE. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 15.469 0 Td (Heather S. v. State of Wisconsin)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 12.859 0 Td (, 125 F.3d)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1045, 1057 \(7th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hartmann)Tj -28.328 -1.125 Td (v. Loudon County Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 15.277 0 Td (, 118 F.3d 996, 1005 \(4th Cir. 1997\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf ( JSK v. Hendry County School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 29.72 0 Td (, 941)Tj -44.997 -1.125 Td (F.2d 1563, 1573 \(11th Cir. 1991\). )Tj (As one)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (court has noted, "[t]he primary responsibility for developing IEPs belon\ gs to)Tj T* (the state and local agencies in cooperation with the parents, not the co\ urts." )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 30.371 0 Td (Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 17.663 0 Td (,)Tj -48.034 -1.125 Td (853 F.2d 256, 258 \(4th Cir. 1988\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 18.748 0 Td (, 489 U.S. 1016 \(1989\).)Tj -18.748 -2.125 Td (Third, the Hearing Officer must not impose on the parties his or her own\ notions of what educational methodology or)Tj T* (educational policy is desirable. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 12.635 0 Td (Fort Zumwalt School District v. Clynes)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 15.722 0 Td (, 119 F.3d)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (607, 614 \(8th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hartmann v.)Tj -28.356 -1.125 Td (Loudoun County Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 14.833 0 Td (, 118 F.3d 996, 1001 \(4th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 30.416 0 Td (, 103)Tj -45.249 -1.125 Td (F.3d 1114, 1121 \(2d Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Union)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (School District v. Smith)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 25.277 0 Td (, 15 F.3d 1519, 1524 \(9th Cir. 1994\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.748 0 Td (, 115)Tj -45.025 -1.125 Td (S.Ct. 428 \(1994\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Lenn v. Portland School Committee)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 21.499 0 Td (, 998 F.2d 1083, 1091 n.8 \(1st Cir. 1993\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Todd D. v. Andrews)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (,)Tj -21.499 -1.125 Td (933)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (F.2d 1576, 1581 \(11th Cir. 1991\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Tice v. Botetourt County School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 31.109 0 Td (, 908 F.2d 1200, 1207 \(4th Cir. 1990\).)Tj -31.109 -2.125 Td (Fourth, the adequacy of an IEP should not be evaluated against any singl\ e criterion. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 33.713 0 Td (Johnson v. Independent School)Tj -33.713 -1.125 Td (District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 921 F.2d 1022, 1028 \(10th Cir. 1990\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 23.804 0 Td (, 500 U.S. 905 \(1991\). )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (See Lenn v. Portland School)Tj -23.804 -1.125 Td (Committee)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 4.333 0 Td (, 998 F.2d 1083, 1089-90 \(1st Cir. 1993\)\(noting need to avoid taking \ a "one-dimensional view of an IEP"\).)Tj -4.333 -2.125 Td (Fifth, the adequacy of an IEP should not be measured by use of a retrosp\ ective analysis or "20/20 hindsight." )Tj 43.834 0 Td (Rather, the)Tj -43.834 -1.125 Td (analysis must be based on a consideration of )Tj 18.051 0 Td (whether, given the facts and)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (circumstances known when the IEP was being)Tj -18.051 -1.125 Td (adopted, the IEP was "reasonably calculated" to enable the child to rece\ ive educational benefit. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 38.301 0 Td (Carlisle Area School v.)Tj -38.301 -1.125 Td (Scott P.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 3.11 0 Td (, 62 F.3d 520, 534 \(3d Cir.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1995\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 18.47 0 Td (, 116 S.Ct. 1419 \(1996\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Roland M. v. Concord School Committee)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 26.415 0 Td (,)Tj -47.995 -1.125 Td (910 F.2d 983, 992 \(1st Cir. 1990\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 18.637 0 Td (, 499 U.S. 912 \(1991\).)Tj -18.637 -2.125 Td (Sixth, the adequacy of an IEP should not be determined by comparing it w\ ith an alternative educational methodology or)Tj T* (placement. )Tj 4.609 0 Td (Even if it is demonstrated that an alternative educational)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (methodology or placement is or may be better than)Tj -4.609 -1.125 Td (the one used by the challenged IEP, it does not follow that the challeng\ ed IEP is inadequate or will fail to provide a)Tj T* (FAPE. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Fort Zumwalt School)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (District v. Clynes)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 18.667 0 Td (, 119 F.3d 607, 613 \(8th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Angevine v. Smith)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 21.748 0 Td (, 959 F.2d 292, 296)Tj -40.415 -1.125 Td (\(D.C. Cir. 1992\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Roland M. v. Concord School Committee)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 23.581 0 Td (, 910 F.2d 983, 993 \(1st Cir. 1990\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.137 0 Td (,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (499 U.S.)Tj -42.718 -1.125 Td (912 \(1991\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Hessler v. State Board of Education of Maryland)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 24.552 0 Td (, 700 F.2d 134, 139 \(4th Cir. 1983\). )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Accord)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( DoDDS Case)Tj -24.552 -1.125 Td (No. 97-E-001 \(December 2, 1997\) at p. 5.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Seventh, an IEP need not provide a child with maximum or optimum benefit\ . )Tj 31.133 0 Td (DoDDS Case No. 97-E-001 \(December 2,)Tj -31.133 -1.125 Td (1997\) at p. 5 n. 2 \(citing federal cases\). )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 15.883 0 Td (See also Heather S. v. State of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Wisconsin)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 16.414 0 Td (, 125 F.3d 1045, 1057 \(7th Cir. 1997\);)Tj ET q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT /TT1 1 Tf 12 0 0 12 16 39.75 Tm (Lenn v. Portland School Committee)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 14.304 0 Td (, 998 F.2d 1083, 1086 \(1st Cir. 1993\). )Tj (However, the IEP must be reasonably)Tj ET EMC Q endstream endobj 101 0 obj [115 0 R] endobj 102 0 obj <>stream BT /Artifact <>BDC /TT0 1 Tf 9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm (97-001.a1)Tj EMC /Artifact <>BDC 0 -86 TD (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001\ .a1.html)Tj 34.607 0 Td ([6/14/2021 11:39:07 AM])Tj EMC ET 1 g 10 36 591.75 729.75 re f /Article <>BDC EMC /Article <>BDC q 10 36 592 730 re W n BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 754.5 Tm (The procedural safeguards of IDEA are very important because they provid\ e parents with the means to ensure that)Tj ET Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 16 741 Tm (school authorities are providing disabled children with a FAPE. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 25.717 0 Td (See, e.g. Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 6.525 0 Td (, 458)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (U.S. at 187-89 \(Court discussing)Tj -32.242 -1.125 Td (procedural safeguards in statute\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 13.55 0 Td (School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of)Tj -13.55 -1.125 Td (Massachusetts)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 471 U.S. 359, 368 \(1985\) \(Court noting)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (importance of procedural safeguards "to insure the full)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (participation of the parents and proper resolution of substantive disagr\ eements"\). )Tj 32.593 0 Td (Because of the important role of the)Tj -32.593 -1.125 Td (procedural requirements)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (under IDEA, a Hearing Officer should give close scrutiny to any colorabl\ e claim that the)Tj T* (procedural safeguards of IDEA \(including procedural safeguards provided\ by applicable DoD regulations\) have)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (not)Tj T* (been complied with. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 8.387 0 Td (Amann v. Stow School System)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 11.97 0 Td (, 982 F.2d 644, 652 \(1st Cir. 1992\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Doe v. Defendant I)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 22.053 0 Td (, 898 F.2d)Tj -42.41 -1.125 Td (1186, 1190 \(6th Cir. 1990\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (A school's failure to comply with applicable procedural requirements may\ be sufficient to support a finding that a child)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (was denied a FAPE. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Buser v. Corpus Christi Independent School)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 26.025 0 Td (, 51 F.3d 490,)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (493 \(5th Cir. 1995\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (reh'g denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 18.99 0 Td (, 56)Tj -45.015 -1.125 Td (F.3d 1387 \(1995\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 12.192 0 Td (, 116 S.Ct. 305 \(1995\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Tice v. Botetourt County School Board)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 24.998 0 Td (, 908 F.2d 1200, 1206-07)Tj -37.19 -1.125 Td (\(4th Cir. 1990\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 6.5 0 Td (Hudson v. Wilson)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 828 F.2d)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1059, 1063 \(4th Cir. 1987\). )Tj (However, the Hearing Officer erred by ruling)Tj -6.5 -1.125 Td (that procedural defects are )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 10.827 0 Td (per se)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( proof of a denial of a FAPE \(Decision at p. 21\). )Tj 21.967 0 Td (Nothing in )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 7.499 0 Td ( supports that)Tj -40.293 -1.125 Td (ruling. )Tj (Furthermore, the federal courts have declined to hold that every procedu\ ral defect requires a finding that a child)Tj T* (was denied a FAPE. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (See, e.g., Doe v. Defendant I)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.8 0 Td (, 898 F.2d 1186, 1190 \(6th Cir.)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (1990\)\(court should not find IEP)Tj -19.8 -1.125 Td (inappropriate based on "technical deviations" or "exalt form over substa\ nce"\). )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 31.428 0 Td (Accord Urban v. Jefferson County School)Tj -31.428 -1.125 Td (District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 89 F.3d 720, 726 \(10th Cir. 1996\). )Tj (Rather, courts have looked at the facts and circumstances of each case t\ o)Tj T* (determine whether the procedural defect or flaw compromised or interfere\ d with the child's right to FAPE, seriously)Tj T* (hampered)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process c\ oncerning their child's education, or)Tj T* (caused a deprivation or loss of educational benefits. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 20.965 0 Td (Heather S. v. State of Wisconsin)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 12.859 0 Td (, 125)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (F.3d 1045, 1059 \(7th Cir.)Tj -33.824 -1.125 Td (1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Gadsby v. Grasmick)Tj /TT0 1 Tf (, 109 F.3d 940, 956 \(4th Cir. 1997\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Independent School District v. S.D.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 39.689 0 Td (, 88 F.3d 556, 562)Tj -39.689 -1.125 Td (\(8th Cir. 1996\); )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 6.5 0 Td (Tennessee Department of Mental Health)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (& Retardation v. Paul B.)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 26.467 0 Td (, 88 F.3d 1466, 1474 \(6th Cir. 1996\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf -32.967 -1.125 Td (Murphy v. Timberlane Regional School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.108 0 Td (, 22 F.3d 1186, 1196 \(1st Cir. 1994\), )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (cert. denied)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 19.637 0 Td (, 115 S.Ct. 484 \(1994\);)Tj /TT1 1 Tf -38.746 -1.125 Td (W.G. v. Board of)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (Trustees of Target Range School District)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 23.443 0 Td (, 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 \(9th Cir. 1992\). )Tj (Indeed, the Board has)Tj -23.443 -1.125 Td (accepted the reasoning of this line of decisions. )Tj 19.188 0 Td (DoDDS Case No. 97-E-001 \(December 2, 1997\))Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (at pp. 6-7 \(relying on)Tj -19.188 -1.125 Td (federal cases to hold that "not every procedural defect requires a findi\ ng that a child was denied a FAPE"\). )Tj 42.912 0 Td (In view of)Tj -42.912 -1.125 Td (the foregoing legal authority, the Hearing Officer erred by)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (using an impermissible )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 33.073 0 Td (per se)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( rule in connection with)Tj -33.073 -1.125 Td (evaluating whether a procedural violation constitutes a denial of FAPE f\ or the Child.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Turning to the specifics of this case, the Board concludes that even if \ it were to affirm or sustain the Hearing Officer's)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (findings and conclusions about the Spring 1997 evaluation of the Child, \ such a)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (result would be legally irrelevant to)Tj T* (both: \(a\) the Board's decision to let stand the Hearing Officer's unch\ allenged finding about the inadequacy of the May)Tj T* (1996 IEP; and \(b\) the Board's conclusion \(to be)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (discussed later\) that the Hearing Officer erred by finding the April 21\ ,)Tj T* (1997 IEP was inadequate. )Tj 10.636 0 Td (On the one hand, the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions about th\ e Spring 1997)Tj -10.636 -1.125 Td (evaluation are)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (not necessary to sustain his unchallenged finding that the May 1996 IEP \ was inadequate. )Tj 41.683 0 Td (On the other)Tj -41.683 -1.125 Td (hand, the timeliness )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 8.221 0 Td (vel non)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 2.916 0 Td ( of the Spring 1997 evaluation was irrelevant to the issue of whether)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (the April 21, 1997 IEP)Tj -11.136 -1.125 Td (was adequate.)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (\(D\) )Tj (Adequacy of April 21, 1997 IEP)Tj ET 0.75 w q 1 0 0 1 35.6582 218.25 cm 0 0 m 155.971 0 l h S Q BT 12 0 0 12 191.6289 219 Tm (. )Tj (As discussed earlier, the Hearing Officer erred by concluding that DDESS\ must)Tj -14.636 -1.125 Td (comply with North Carolina law. )Tj 13.498 0 Td (Since DDESS is not required to comply with)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (North Carolina law, it follows that the)Tj -13.498 -1.125 Td (Hearing Officer erred by evaluating the adequacy of the education DDESS \ provided to the Child against the Hearing)Tj 0 -1.375 TD (Officer's interpretation of North Carolina)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (law.)Tj 0 0 0.933 rg 9.75 0 0 9.75 236.752 180 Tm (\(9\))Tj ET 0 0 0.933 RG q 1 0 0 1 236.752 179.25 cm 0 0 m 11.369 0 l h S Q BT 0 g 12 0 0 12 248.1206 175.5 Tm ( )Tj (However, this conclusion is not dispositive because the Board must)Tj -19.343 -1.125 Td (consider whether it can sustain the Hearing Officer's alternative findin\ g that DDESS failed to provide the Child with a)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (FAPE)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (under the standard enunciated in )Tj /TT1 1 Tf 15.94 0 Td (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 29.968 0 Td (, 458)Tj -45.909 -1.125 Td (U.S. 176 \(1982\).)Tj 0 -2.125 TD (Under )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Rowley)Tj /TT0 1 Tf 5.692 0 Td (, there is a two-step analysis: \(a\) has the education authority compli\ ed with the procedural requirements of)Tj -5.692 -1.125 Td (the IDEA? and \(b\) is the IEP developed through the procedures reasonab\ ly)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (calculated to enable the child to receive)Tj 0 -1.125 TD (educational benefit? )Tj 8.329 0 Td (458 U.S. at 206-07. )Tj /TT1 1 Tf (Accord)Tj /TT0 1 Tf ( DoDDS Case No. 97-E-001 \(December 2, 1997\) at p. 6.)Tj -8.329 -2.125 Td (As discussed earlier, because DDESS' appeal brief does not challenge the\ Hearing Officer's finding that the May 1996)Tj T* (IEP was inadequate, the Board will not disturb that finding. )Tj 24.051 0 Td (However, DDESS)Tj /Span<>> BDC ( )Tj EMC (does contend that the April 21, 1997 IEP)Tj ET EMC endstream endobj 115 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[237.0 177.0 248.0 188.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 96 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[117.0 352.0 133.0 363.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 97 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[444.0 229.0 460.0 240.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 98 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[72.0 187.0 88.0 198.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 99 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[501.0 187.0 517.0 198.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 100 0 obj <>/BS<>/Border[0 0 0]/PA<>/Rect[571.0 144.0 587.0 155.0]/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> endobj 12 0 obj <> endobj 116 0 obj <> endobj 9 0 obj <> endobj 10 0 obj <> endobj 11 0 obj <> endobj 142 0 obj (file:///rsrc.osd.mil/DFS/All_JSP/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/special-ed/97-001.a1.html) endobj 141 0 obj <> endobj 143 0 obj <> endobj 117 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 464.0 null] endobj 118 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 398.0 null] endobj 119 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 359.0 null] endobj 120 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 320.0 null] endobj 121 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 281.0 null] endobj 122 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 242.0 null] endobj 123 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 163.0 null] endobj 124 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 124.0 null] endobj 125 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 58.0 null] endobj 126 0 obj [50 0 R/XYZ 0 740.0 null] endobj 127 0 obj [48 0 R/XYZ 0 248.0 null] endobj 128 0 obj [50 0 R/XYZ 0 660.0 null] endobj 129 0 obj [50 0 R/XYZ 0 608.0 null] endobj 130 0 obj [50 0 R/XYZ 0 488.0 null] endobj 131 0 obj [50 0 R/XYZ 0 354.0 null] endobj 132 0 obj [50 0 R/XYZ 0 302.0 null] endobj 133 0 obj [48 0 R/XYZ 0 209.0 null] endobj 134 0 obj [48 0 R/XYZ 0 143.0 null] endobj 135 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 766.0 null] endobj 136 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 713.0 null] endobj 137 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 647.0 null] endobj 138 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 595.0 null] endobj 139 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 556.0 null] endobj 140 0 obj [49 0 R/XYZ 0 517.0 null] endobj 4 0 obj <> endobj xref 0 144 0000000000 65535 f 0000000016 00000 n 0000000141 00000 n 0000003656 00000 n 0000269888 00000 n 0000003534 00000 n 0000003589 00000 n 0000003723 00000 n 0000003750 00000 n 0000267580 00000 n 0000268391 00000 n 0000268434 00000 n 0000267391 00000 n 0000010812 00000 n 0000226583 00000 n 0000177865 00000 n 0000003854 00000 n 0000003900 00000 n 0000003949 00000 n 0000004638 00000 n 0000004126 00000 n 0000004158 00000 n 0000004190 00000 n 0000004222 00000 n 0000004254 00000 n 0000004286 00000 n 0000004318 00000 n 0000004350 00000 n 0000004382 00000 n 0000004414 00000 n 0000004446 00000 n 0000004478 00000 n 0000004510 00000 n 0000004542 00000 n 0000004574 00000 n 0000004606 00000 n 0000096891 00000 n 0000097117 00000 n 0000097332 00000 n 0000097547 00000 n 0000226677 00000 n 0000226894 00000 n 0000227096 00000 n 0000227313 00000 n 0000216658 00000 n 0000177966 00000 n 0000178182 00000 n 0000178384 00000 n 0000178611 00000 n 0000178813 00000 n 0000171131 00000 n 0000005605 00000 n 0000005820 00000 n 0000005845 00000 n 0000010727 00000 n 0000010776 00000 n 0000010906 00000 n 0000011516 00000 n 0000170871 00000 n 0000041681 00000 n 0000041948 00000 n 0000011929 00000 n 0000012202 00000 n 0000012627 00000 n 0000042574 00000 n 0000162416 00000 n 0000162448 00000 n 0000106135 00000 n 0000152321 00000 n 0000152360 00000 n 0000143839 00000 n 0000143871 00000 n 0000097748 00000 n 0000106626 00000 n 0000106902 00000 n 0000107474 00000 n 0000151803 00000 n 0000152063 00000 n 0000161638 00000 n 0000161898 00000 n 0000162158 00000 n 0000170351 00000 n 0000170611 00000 n 0000171333 00000 n 0000207454 00000 n 0000207486 00000 n 0000199432 00000 n 0000190839 00000 n 0000190864 00000 n 0000185543 00000 n 0000179015 00000 n 0000199170 00000 n 0000216134 00000 n 0000216396 00000 n 0000216873 00000 n 0000216927 00000 n 0000266082 00000 n 0000266344 00000 n 0000266606 00000 n 0000266866 00000 n 0000267128 00000 n 0000256247 00000 n 0000256274 00000 n 0000247064 00000 n 0000238237 00000 n 0000238272 00000 n 0000227530 00000 n 0000227589 00000 n 0000236922 00000 n 0000237185 00000 n 0000237448 00000 n 0000237711 00000 n 0000237974 00000 n 0000246538 00000 n 0000246801 00000 n 0000265821 00000 n 0000267478 00000 n 0000268857 00000 n 0000268900 00000 n 0000268943 00000 n 0000268986 00000 n 0000269029 00000 n 0000269072 00000 n 0000269115 00000 n 0000269158 00000 n 0000269201 00000 n 0000269243 00000 n 0000269286 00000 n 0000269329 00000 n 0000269372 00000 n 0000269415 00000 n 0000269458 00000 n 0000269501 00000 n 0000269544 00000 n 0000269587 00000 n 0000269630 00000 n 0000269673 00000 n 0000269716 00000 n 0000269759 00000 n 0000269802 00000 n 0000269845 00000 n 0000268578 00000 n 0000268478 00000 n 0000268802 00000 n trailer <<196D8FFA7F2E304C95BE3D03143573EA>]>> startxref 270059 %%EOF