New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 187218

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: October 2, 2019

December 12, 2019

January 23, 2020

March 4, 2020

March 31, 2020

April 23, 2020

May 13, 2020

June 3, 2020

Actual Record Closed Date: July 22, 2020

Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.

APPEARANCES October 2, 2019 December 12, 2019 January 23, 2020 March 4, 2020 March 31, 2020 April 23, 2020 May 13, 2020 June 3, 2020

For the Parents:

Esq, Attorney

For the District:

District Representative

For the Parents:

Esq., Attorney

For the District:

District Representative

For the Parents:

Esq., Attorney

For the District:

District Representative

For the Parents:

Esq. Attorney

For the District:

District Representative

For the Parents:

Esq., Attorney

For the District:

District Representative

For the Parents:

Esq., Attorney

parent

Special Education teacher

For the District:

District Representative

For the Parents:

Esq., Attorney

Esq., Attorney

parent

parent

Director of Strategic Clinical Initiatives

For the District:

District Representative

For the Parents:

Esq. Attorney

parent

parent

Clinical Director, BCBA

For the District:

Esq.

On October 2, 2019, December 12, 2019, January 23, 2020, March 4, 2020 March 31, 2020, April 23, 2020, May 13, 2020, and June 3, 2020, I conducted an Impartial Hearing initially at the New York City Department of Education (““DOE” or “the district’) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, and thereafter remotely through DOE Impartial Hearing Office facilities pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of XXX (“the student’).

Procedural History

The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parents by correspondence dated September 3, 2020. (Ex. A) I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer on September 10, 2019. Pursuant to the request of the parents a hearing with regard to the student’s entitlements during the pendency of this matter was conducted on October 2, 2019 and by order dated November 4, 2019, the following was provided:

SEIT 10 hours per week (2:1) Speech Language Therapy: 2x45 min. (1:1) and 1x45 min. (2:1) per week; Occupational Therapy: 2x45 min. per week (1:1) Physical Therapy: 2x30 min per week (1:1) With regard to the SEIT services, payment at a reasonable rate was ordered and it was specified that the determination of what is reasonable must include consideration of relevant State authorized SEIT rates. (Ex. J) At a prehearing conference on November 12, 2019, I was informed that the district was in in the process of investigating regarding the possibility of settlement and that the parties wanted further opportunity for that. (Ex. /) Evidentiary hearings commenced on April 23, 2020 and were concluded on June 3, 2020.

The parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of settlement investigation, anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence, receipt of the transcript and issuance of the decision within the permitted time period. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted. (T16. 19. 22, 24, 27, 33-34. 37, 43-44, A8, 115-116, 121, 261, 268, 370, Ex. J)

The current compliance date is August 14, 2020. The record closed on July 22, 2020, upon my receipt of all closing documents.^[1] '

Positions of the Parties

The parents allege that the CPSE failed to recommend ABA services in the student’s 2018-2019 school year (“SY”) IEP dated August 17, 2018 (Ex., B) and that the CSE in its March 28, 2019 IESP incorrectly recommended SETSS rather than SEIT for the 2019-2020 SY and also inappropriately failed to recommend ABA by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (“BCBA”) . The parents seek reimbursement for all ABA provided during the 2018-2019 SY alleged to total $74,181, 15. Further, for the 2019-2020 SY the parents seek an order providing services consistent with SEIT services at a rate of $115 per hour, higher than the determined rate for a SEIT for that school year ( “enhanced rate”). The parents also seek reimbursement for all ABA provided for the student during the 2019-2020 SY. (Ex III)?^[2]

In its opening statement the district stated that it was not presenting a case regarding the parent’ claims but that it disputed the relief sought. (T53) The district acknowledged that it failed to provide a FAPE for the 2019-2020 SY. (T57) With regard to the 2018-2019 SY claim for reimbursement, the district asserted that the parents did not appropriately or timely inform the district of their claim that the student required ABA during the 2018-2019 SY and give it an opportunity to correct (T58-59) It did not assert that the claim was not appropriately raised in the hearing request.

(T56)

The district filed a closing statement in this matter in which it did not reassert the claims previously stated but did assert that all claims concerning the 2019-2020 SEIT were moot as the school year has concluded and the pendency order had been in effect and that the parents had failed to provide documentation as to the number and cost to them of the ABA sessions provided in both school years. (Ex. /V)

Cases Presented

Both parties presented documents for admission into the record although the district’s documents were limited to pendency issues. A list of the documents in the record is appended.

The district presented no witnesses. The parents presented the testimony of: the student’s SEIT 2019-2020 SEIT provider; the student’s ABA supervisor; and the student’s mother.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

A) Factual Findings

I find the testimony of the witnesses credible and note it was neither contested nor rebutted. The evidence in this matter shows:

The student is classified as having a Speech or Language Impairment. (Ex D) That classification is not in dispute. However, he was diagnosed in an independent Neuropsychological Evaluation obtained by the parent while the student was in preschool with: 1) Autistic Spectrum Disorder; 2) Expressive/Receptive/Pragmatic Language Disorder. (Ex. J) The student demonstrates age level to above age level abilities in certain academic skills and age-level eating and dressing skills but has social-emotional and communication challenges as well as difficulty with self-regulation which result in his requiring appropriate special education support to make meaningful progress. (Exs. J, L, B, D)

The student received Early Intervention services and thereafter CPSE services. (Ex. J) In September 2017 the parent enrolled the student in 5a preschool in which he received SEIT support and related services. (Ex. J ) In the following school year the parent was concerned that the student was not making appropriate progress. (T183)

The CPSE initially convened on June 22, 2018 and reconvened again on August 17, 2018 to develop a preschool program (“the 2018 TEP ). The IEP specifies that the it was a “Requested Review to discuss new evaluations and need for services and programs” through the CPSE. (Ex. B-2) (Ex. B) The CPSE recommended a 12 month program to commence July 2, 2018 and conclude August 2019. (Ex. B) The recommendations included SEIT (group of 2) 10 hours per week and individual and group Speech -Language Therapy (“SLT” and individual Occupational Therapy (“OT’’) and Physical Therapy (“PT”) in a Regular Early Childhood Center Selected by the Parent. (Ex. B) The IEP does not indicate and the parent does not assert that she informed the CPSE that the parents were not in agreement and/or that a neuropsychological evaluation commencing in August was planned or anticipated.

An independent Neuropsychological Evaluation (“the IEE”) was conducted in August-September 2018. The evaluator noted the student’s communication, play, social interaction delays and tendency toward self-direction and that he had responded well to special education support interwoven through his school day as well as supported opportunities to socialize with his general education peers. She recommended as “essential” placement in a small nurturing school environment with at least 20 hours of SEIT and/or ABA specialist support. (Ex. J)

Commencing in October 2018 the parent provided ABA services which supplemented the services provided by the SEIT. (T277, Ex. N) The number of hours initially provided was reduced over time, partly as a consequence of the parent’s financial circumstances. The record does not include any specification of the dates of ABA services provided. The parent does not assert that the CSE was promptly informed of the IEE or the provision of ABA. The student was then in a non-public preschool.

The CSE convened on March 28, 2019 to develop a program for the student’s kindergarten year. (Ex. D) The CSE was informed by the parent that the student would be attending a non-public school and an IESP was developed. (Exs. P, D) The CSE had received the IEE by March 21 and at the March 28 meeting the parent requested DOE provision of ABA. (T195, Ex. P) However, the parent was informed at the review that ABA could not be recommended pursuant to DOE policy. The parent was informed that the impartial hearing process was available if she disagreed with the recommendation.

By communication dated May 7, 2019 to the CSE the parent stated that the student’s current program (the 2018 IEP) was being supplemented with 16 hours per week of ABA, that insurance would not cover the entire cost and that DOE was put on notice that the parents “reserve the right to seek reimbursement for our out-of pocket costs for ABA during the current 2018-2019 school year. (Ex. F)

By communication dated May 31, 2019, the parent, among other things, stated that the appropriateness of the IESP for the “upcoming 2019-2020 school year” was still being considered by the parent. (Ex. G)

By “10-Day Notice” dated June 14, 2019 from parent’s counsel, the district was informed that the parent would be supplementing the DOE’s program with ABA therapy in the summer of 2019 based upon the student’s need for that service as was discussed by the parent at the March 28, 2019 review and would seek DOE funding for 16 hours of ABA per week during the summer of 2019. (Ex. C)

By letter dated July 9, 2019, in response to the parent’s May 7, 2019 letter from the CSE the parent that she was welcome to submit additional documentation and request an evaluation but that ABA “is a therapy based on the science of learning and behavior and not a related service that the Department of Education can include in [the student’s] Individual Education Plan.” (Ex. H)

By letter dated July 26, 2019, the parent responded that it appeared that the district could not provide ABA services even if that was required to enable the student to make progress. (Ex. I)

By letter dated September 3, 2019, the instant complaint was filed asserting, among other things, the student’s need for special education teacher services interwoven throughout the school day as well as his need for ABA and the DOE policy that prevented his receiving it regardless of demonstrated need. The parent asserted that the IESP was not appropriate and requested, among other things, reimbursement/funding for 20 hours of SEIT/ABA services and“Compensatory education for the ABA services paid for by his parents during the 2018-2019 school year.” No claims concerning the 2018 IEP review were asserted. (Ex. A)

The student’s SEIT for the 2019-2020 SY has been providing 10 hours per week of 1:1 instruction since September 2019 during the school day. (T74, Ex. M) The student’s social-emotional and communication issues affect his academic performance and unfamiliar concepts must be discussed and connections made. (T75, 78, 89, 91, 106) The student has progressed in areas of deficit. (Ex. L) She receives ongoing supervision and professional development activities from the agency and her goals for the student are developed wither supervisor and the student’s teacher. (T78, 91-92, 104-105, 98, 112) Since the COVID closure she has been providing remote learning and the student appears to be benefiting although there are difficulties. (T82-83) The SEIT is paid $60 per hour. (T102)

The SEIT’s supervisor is certified in special education (birth-2"' G) and has a Masters degree in early childhood special education and holds an administrative position at the agency. (T127-128, 140) The agency’s charge is $115 for school aged children and that charge was arrived at years ago by adding an administrative charge to the State authorized rate for SEITs providing services to preschoolers. (T132-133) Substantial added administrative costs is the reason for the increased rate; the services provided are similar. (T143, 151-153) The student has a unique learning profile which interferes with his ability to access the curriculum. (T137-139) She opined that this student needs the services someone called a SEIT would be providing. (T145) If SEIT services specify a group of 2, the services may be provided 1:1 if clinically appropriate. (T157, 159) The agency pays providers within a range of from $55-85 and she has been informed that other agencies receive higher fees. (T174, 177,175) The Clinical Director of the agency which provides ABA services to the student is a BCBA and holds a Ph.D in ABA and a Masters degree in education. (T275, 327-328, Ex. 0) She described the student as having a significant communication delays in class and out with a high degree of distractibility, internal and sensor but also extremely compliant which limits the attention he gets. He benefits from interaction with mainstream peers. (T286) All persons who provide ABA services to the student are licensed BCBAs with at least education licenses and data is analyzed daily and targets promptly updated when appropriate. (T276, 282, 309) The student has progressed and the ABA has enabled him to access the curriculum although she opined that more progress could have been made if more ABA had been provided. (T 285, 292-294, 288-289) Her agency has been providing services to the student since October 2018 with the number of hours varying and is currently providing 10-12 hours per week plus monthly supervision of 2-4 hours. (T277, 283, 313, 302) Direct services to the student are billed at $175 per hour, all of which goes to the provider, and supervision, which she provides, is billed at $250 per hour. (T230, 355, Ex. N) Her understanding is that those rates are below the market rate. (T298, 299, 357) Services were provided in the classroom, with no overlap with SEIT services provided, until the COVID closing and the student has since received some at home instruction, some telephone instruction and zoom use and a changed schedule of reinforcers so they will be effective remotely. (T. 314) She assesses the student every 6 months and has not provided written reports to the parent but could do so ifrequired. (T286-287, 285-289, 303.,308) She communicates with the parents weekly. (T358) The ABA Clinical Director participated in the March 2019 review by phone during which the CSE denied the parent’s request for ABA. (T289-290)

The parent attended both reviews and provided all evaluations in her possession prior to the review .(T184-185, 207, 215, Ex. P) She had believed the student required additional related services and SEIT but her request had been denied. (T183) The IEE was an effort to obtain more information. (T184) The student was not diagnosed with autism until the IEE. (T234) DOE staff were not notified about the IEE or results until the report was provided. (T234) She had attempted to locate a SETSS provider through use of the DOE’s list but was unsuccessful. (T196-198, 240) At the review CSE team members informed her that SETSS was not a perfect replacement for SEIT and there was a difference in the way the services are provided to the student including the location and the more academic SETSS focus. (T189-191) The March 2019 CSE had initially proposed 5 SEIT hours but increased it to 10 telling her it was the closest they could get to the SEIT model. (T191-192) Although she requested ABA the CSE told her that they could not provide that but she could utilize the impartial hearing process with that request and seek reimbursement. (T195, 238) The parent believes that the student has been making tremendous progress since the provision of ABA. (T201-202) The SEIT has been providing about 6 hours per week since the COVID closure and the BCBA has been providing about 2 hours a day. (T202-207) The parent’s recollection is that the student was receiving about 16 hours per week of ABA when he commenced with that service and reductions commenced in Spring 2019 and he is now received 10 hours per week of ABA. (T217) Insurance made partial payments for some of the services and she had no recall as to how much but thought it was probably a third of the cost. (T222-223)

B) Relevant Legal Authority

1) Entitlement to Services in a Private School Placement

A district must offer a FAPE to each student with a disability residing in the district who requires special education services or programs. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(a)(1)(A); Educ . Law Sec. 4402 (2)((a), (b)(2).

Under New York State Education Law Sec. 3602-c parents of students with disabilities have the right and ability to select a nonpublic school willing to enroll their child and places the burden of developing and providing appropriate special education programming upon the school district in which such school is located. A board of education must offer a FAPE to each student with a disability residing in the school district who requires special education services or programs. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(a)(1)(A); Educ. Law Sec. 4402(2)(a), (b)(2).. The school district must develop an appropriate program for the student in the environment in which the student will receive his/her education (i.e. the nonpublic school). Section 3602(2) explicitly states that a school district of location’s CSE “shall develop an [IESP] based upon the student’s individual needs in the same manner and in the same manner and with the same contents as an [IEP]. Educ. Law Sec. 3602-c(2)(b)(1). “The committee on special education shall assure that special education programs and services are made available to students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools located within the school district on an equitable basis, as compared to special education programs and services provided to other students with disabilities attending public or nonpublic schools located within the school district. Id.

Additionally, section 3602-c provides that a parent may seek review of the recommendation of the CSE with the impartial hearing and State-level review procedures pursuant to Education Law Sec. 4404. Id.

2) Reimbursement for Educational Services Unilaterally Provided

The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services pursuant to the IDEA is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate; and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In New York State the DOE bears the burden of proof with regard to all issues unless a claim for tuition payment for a unilateral placement is made. SRO 11-053. N.Y. Education Law §4404[1][c].

Further, I note that under §§1412 and 1415 of the IDEA, a free appropriate public education is available to all children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, and courts and hearing officers have broad authority to grant such relief as they deem appropriate. 20 U.S.C. §§1412(a)(1), 1415G)(2)(C)

Gi); Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A, 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2492 (S. Ct. 2009); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006).

3) Compensatory Services

With regard to compensatory education services when there is a denial of FAPE, the district has the burden of proof and persuasion. Appeal No. 11-091 n. 10. See also Appeal No. 14-014. However, the parent is not therefore entitled to all claimed even when a denial of FAPE is conceded. Relief must be commensurate and it must be equitable. “...[C]ompensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet (4 the unique circumstances of each case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]).” Appeal No. 11-027.

C) CONCLUSIONS

1)Services Provided by the District

In this matter the district stated it was not presenting a case. (T53)

No evidence has been presented with regard to the CSE’s review for the 2018-2019 SY. Further, I note there was no objection based upon any inadequacy in the complaint and that testimony concerning that school year and the August 2018 IEP was elicited by the district and no objections to parent testimony concerning this was asserted by the district. I conclude that the district waived any claim based upon failure to assert in the hearing request has been waived.

With regard to the 2019-2020 SY the district has conceded that it failed to provide

a FAPE. (T57)

Accordingly, I conclude that the district has failed to establish that it provided a FAPE for each of the school years.

2) Parent Selected Services_

In this matter the parent asserts that the ABA unilaterally provided was appropriate in light of this student’s needs. Further the parent asserts that the student required a special education teacher services 1:1 in the same manner as that which is provided by an educator designated as a SEIT in pre-school placements. The parent, however, seeks an enhanced rate of $115 per hour for the special education teacher services provided in the 2019-2020 SY.That IEp was to be implemented commencing September 2019.

The testimony of the witnesses, supported by documentary evidence, established substantial special education needs and included his diagnoses. The student’s need for ABA services and/or the services of a special education teacher provided principally within the classroom by a teacher qualified to address his special education needs in the same manner as a SEIT has been established by credible evidence and has not been contested by the DOE. The parent’s provision of ABA services was consistent with the IEE recommendation and supported by the testimony.

The distinction between SEIT and SETSS is not only a different instructional focus and the fact that instruction is provided by a SEIT principally within the classroom, as the evidence shows, but also an administrative distinction based upon whether the student is a preschooler or a school age child with a SEIT paid at a State determined rate through an expedited procedure. I conclude that the student requires the services in the manner provided by a SEIT, which include in classroom services, although I see no need for that designation in the circumstances here. The parent’s request for a fee of $115 per hour for a person providing that service is supported by persuasive evidence that it is not unreasonable in view of a substantially increased burden due to DOE administrative procedures when payment is sought.

With regard to the amount of AB provided,, the evidence does not provide adequate information as to the degree of ABA services the student actually received in the school years at issue, although it suggests that it was approximately 10-12 hours per week of direct service in the 2019-2020 SY and somewhat more earlier, and that some hours of supervision was also necessary and provided. It is well established that in developing an IEP a district need not provide the best possible program- i.e. maximize potential. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 199; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. I conclude that similarly there is no entitlement to that with regard to relief when a district has failed to provide a FAPE. The IEE recommended a total of 20 hours a week of ABA/SEIT. The evidence presented does not demonstrate that the student required more than that to make meaningful educational gains in his unique circumstances. Endrew Accordingly entitlement to ABA reimbursement, when appropriate,, as discussed below, will be limited to 10 hours per week of direct service. However, I conclude that supervision is necessary to appropriately provide that service and 3 hours a month of BCBA supervision is provided.

3) Equitable Considerations

Whether the relief requested is considered to in connection with a unilaterally provided program or as compensatory services for a denial of FAPE, the equities must be considered.

With regard to 2019 IEP (September 2019-June 2020) the evidence shows the parent cooperated with district. I note parental participation in the review, the provision of evaluative material for CSE review and that parental concerns were communicated to the CSE. I find no basis in equity for a denial of reimbursement for ABA services as limited above based upon equitable considerations.

With regard to the 2018 IEP, however, although I have concluded that the district has failed to establish that it provided a FAPE, no claims of improper CSE determination in August 2018 have been indicated. Rather the parent subsequent to that review obtained additional evaluative material and acted upon it but did not notify the DOE about it until approximately March 2019. Further, the notification was in the context of a CSE review and was not a request for a reevaluation for the period covered by the August 2018 IEP (through August 2019). Although the parent in May 2019 informed the CSE that the right to request reimbursement was reserved no formal request or claim was made. It was not until June 2019 that the parent requested that ABA services be added to the student’s program. The CSE’s position regarding ABA was not know to the parent until March 2019. I note that the 2019 IEP CSE did modify its initial recommendations in response to parental concerns and CSE response to an earlier notification had one been made is speculative. Further, notwithstanding the parent’s subsequent understanding with regard the district’s ABA position no specific claim was made until the June 2019 request for summer ABA services. In the circumstances here I conclude, based upon equitable considerations, that the reimbursement in connection with the 2018 IEP shall be limited the allowed ABA services provided in July-August (maximum hours per week plus supervision).

ORDER

1) For the period September 2019-June 2020, the student was entitled to receive

2) For the period September 2019-June 2020 the student was entitled to receive special education teacher services (10 hours per week) from a teacher with credentials equivalent to that required of a SEIT and in accordance with the methodology utilized by a SEIT which includes principally in classroom instruction at a rate of $115 per hour.

3) For the period July 2019-August 2019, the student was entitled to receive 10 hours per week of BCBA services from a BCBA at the rate of $175 per hour and 3 hours monthly ABA supervision from a BCBA at the rate of $250 per hour. The DOE shall reimburse the parent for such services actually provided upon the submission of evidence regarding parental costs as discussed below.

4) To establish entitlement to reimbursement for ABA services, the parent shall provide the DOE with satisfactory evidence of the dates the services were provided, the payments that were made by the parent and any insurance reimbursement received for those services.

Dated: August 17, 2020

JUDITH SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.

EXHIBITS

1. District CSE IESP, 3/28/19, 16 pgs. DOE

2. Email Correspondence SEIT rate, 9/20/19, 1 pg. Parent DOE

A. Impartial Hearing 6 pgs. Request B 08/17/2018 Individualized 21 pgs. Education Plan 09/03/2019

C. Ten Day Notice 1 pg.

D 03/28/2019 Individualized 14 pgs. Education Service Plan E 04/15/2019 Prior Written 3 pgs. Notice 06/14/2019

F. Parent Letter to 2 pgs CSE 05/07/2019

G. Parent Letter to 2 pgs CSE 05/31/2019

H. Letter from 1 pg. to Parent 07/09/2019

PARENT

I. Letter to 2 pgs.

2 CSE J August Neuropsychological 36 pgs. and Examination September 2018 07/26/2019

K. Speech and 7 pgs. Language Report 01/05/2019

L. Education Progress 6 pgs Report (SEIT) M_ 10/01/2019 Affidavit of 1 pg. N_ 04/16/2020 Affidavits of 2 pgs

O Various, Ph.D., 2 pgs. dates BCBA, LBA 01/22/2019

P. Email Exchange 3pegs. 2019 between Parent and School Social Worker Impartial Hearing Officer vf Prehearing Conference Memo IT Order on Pendency TT Parents Closing Memorandum IV District Closing Memorandum Spring hours per week of ABA services from a BCBA at the rate of $175 per hour and 3 hours monthly of ABA supervision from a BCBA at the rate of $250 per hour. The DOE shall reimburse the parent for such services actually provided upon the submission of evidence regarding parental costs as discussed below.

---

Footnotes

[1] The decision in this matter was delayed by unexpected circumstances which I regret.

[2] The decision in this matter was delayed by unexpected circumstances whichI regret. * The related services recommended by the CPSE and CSE and the rate for those services are not in dispute and counsel stated that neither those services nor transportation is an issue for my determination.