New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINAL ORDER - DOE DEFAULT “NO APPEARANCE” & INQUEST

Case Number: 190189

NYS Identifier Number N/A Student's Name: [“Confidential”]

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates(s) of Hearing: 03/27/20

Actual Record Close Date: 09/07/20

Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

“No Appearance” N/A DOE 03/27/20

Mother PARENT 03/27/20 (T)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

Number/Letter Title Dated For #of Pages

N/A N/A N/A DOE N/A

N/A N/A N/A PARENT N/A

N/A N/A N/A IHO N/A

On October 18, 2019, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( “IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, concerning a dispute between the Parent of an (_) year old student being home schooled and the New York City - Department of Education (“DOE”) - District: |, regarding the student's special education program.

After having adjournments granted at the request of and with the consent of the parties, or for good cause, the impartial hearing was held on March 27, 2020. The DOE did not appear at the hearing. (T-2-3) A list of the persons who appeared at the hearing in person and via affidavits and the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto.

BACKGROUND

This case was initiated as the result of a written Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) made by the student's Parent “pro se” and received at the Department of Education Impartial Hearing Office (“DOE-IHO”) on or about October 15, 2019. The DPC is carried under New York City (“NYC”) . The Parent herein alleges that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2019

2020 school year in that the student needs SETSS services. At the impartial hearing, the Parent request the following relief: (a) as a SETSS provider; and

FINAL ORDER

The Parents’ DPC having been duly filed pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Notice having been duly given to the DOE; and The matter having come on for an “impartial hearing” before this IHO on March 27, 2020, and which time the DOE did not appear at the hearing (T-2-3) and this decision/order will be made on the submission of oral arguments and testamentary and documentary evidence; and The Parent having appeared “pro se” and the DOE having failed to appear at the hearing (Id.); and An inquest regarding the Parent's damages and the relief she seeks having been conducted, and this “Final Order” being based upon the testamentary and documentary submissions, where if at all indicated, having been presented to this IHO on the record as being in the best interest of the Parent; and Whereas under the IDEA, the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing is placed upon the party seeking relief. (See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. at 59-62) On August 15, 2007, the New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of proof upon the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement would continue to have the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007) The amended statute took effect for impartial hearings commenced on or after October 14, 2007. (SRO No. 08-016); and Whereas the DOE having failed to submit any testamentary or documentary evidence to meet it burden under the law; and Whereas the DOE failed to appear for the impartial hearing as scheduled, failed to file and serve an answer, or serve a “Prior Written Notice” in this case. (See 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(e); and Whereas “Prior Written Notice’ meaning written statements developed in accordance with Section 200.5(a) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, and provided to the parents of a student with a disability a reasonable time before the school district proposes to or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the student or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the student; and Whereas silence in a responsive pleading is an admission, or that a counterclaim in federal practice is compulsory in the answer or deemed waived. (See New York Practice, 4" Edition §§223 & 224, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13(a) & Cummings v. Dresher, 18 N.Y.2d 105, 108, 271 N.Y.S.2d 976, 218 N.E.2d 688, 690 (1966) and additionally, as a general matter, the parties to an impartial hearing are obligated to comply with the reasonable directives of the Impartial Hearing Officer ( “IHO”) regarding the conduct of the impartial hearing. (SRO No. 05-026, 04-103 and 04

061); and Whereas an IHO may require the parties to be present at the impartial hearing.

(8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(3)(xiii) and an IHO’s order to the Parent (here the DOE) to attend the impartial hearing in order to be questioned is a reasonable directive that obligates the agency to comply. (SRO No. 09-073); and Whereas the parties’ appearance is integral to the administration of an impartial hearing and at an impartial hearing, the IHO is authorized to administer oaths and to issue subpoenas in connection with the administrative proceeding (8 NYCRR

200.5{j|[3][iv]) and the IHO may ask questions of attorneys or witnesses for the purposes of clarification or completeness of the hearing record. (8 NYCRR

200.5{j][3][vii]); and Whereas the Parents, school authorities, and their respective attorneys or representatives, have an opportunity to present evidence, compel the attendance of witnesses, and to confront and question all witnesses at the impartial hearing. (8 NYCRR 200.5{j][3][xii]) and the IHO may take direct testimony by affidavit in lieu of in hearing testimony, provided that the witness giving such testimony shall be made available for cross-examination (8 NYCRR 200.5{j][3][xii][f]} and none of these processes can occur without the participation of the parties; and Whereas an IHO’s dismissal of a DPC with prejudice, based on the failure of the party to prosecute and comply with reasonable directives issued during the proceeding, has been held appropriate under the circumstances of the case. (SRO No. 04-061); and Whereas under New York law, a party’s failure to show up at the scheduled time for trial may entitle the opposing party to a default judgment. (CPLR § 3215(a); and Whereas the party who defaults in concedes only liability and not the amount of “damages.” (See CPLR § 3215, First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Classic Collateral Corp., 44 A.D.2d 868, 355 N.Y.S.2d 504 (1974), James _v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 (1967), McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N.Y. 347, 169 N.E. 605 (1930) The DOE’s default constitutes an admission of liability, but not of damages, which remains the Parent's burden to prove. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 & City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 at 128 [2d Cir. 2011]); and Whereas as noted above, the DOE has the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404/[1][c]); and Whereas here, the DOE did not appear at the hearing or proffer any evidence that it has offered the student a FAPE, and specifically, that it is providing the student with a transportation paraprofessional as mandated by his IEP (ld.), this amounting to a tacit concession that the agency did not offer the student a FAPE; and Whereas as noted above, the DOE did not serve and file an answer in the case, nor did the agency serve the Parent with “Prior Written Notice’, which would provide either a denial of the Parent’s allegation, or some explanation for the agency’s failure to provide the Parent with the relief sought; and Whereas as noted above, the DOE failed to appear, failed call any witnesses or to present a case-in-chief, did not submit any documents in evidence and did not cross examine the Parent (T-2-3) and the DOE also failed to file and serve an answer or serve a “Prior Written Notice” in this case. (See 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(e); and Whereas as noted above, “Prior Written Notice” means written statements developed in accordance with Section 200.5(a) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education and provided to the parents of a student with a disability a reasonable time before the school district proposes to or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the student or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the student and notifies the Parent of the agency’s rational for its position and recommendations; and Whereas as noted above, silence in a responsive pleading is an admission, or that a counterclaim in federal practice is compulsory in the answer or deemed waived.

(See New York Practice, 4 Edition §§ 223 & 224, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13(a) & Cummings v. Dresher, 18 N.Y.2d 105, 108, 271 N.Y.S.2d 976, 218 N.E.2d 688, 690 (1966); and Whereas as noted above, under the IDEA, the DOE has the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]); and Whereas as noted above, the DOE did not present any direct case or proffer any substantive evidence that it has offered the student a FAPE or that the Parent is not entitled to the relief sought and there is a tacit concession that the agency did not offer the student a FAPE as required by law in that the DOE did not present a case-in-chief, did not serve and file an answer in the case, nor did the agency serve the Parent with “Prior Written Notice”, which could provide a denial of the Parent’s allegation, and that the Parent is entitled to the relief sought; and Whereas although it would be fundamentally unfair to allow either party to rely solely on the submission of documents in meeting its burden under law, where those documents are rife with double, triple and even unidentified hearsay sources, that cannot be cross examined; and Whereas while compliance with technical rules of evidence is not required in administrative hearings, under certain circumstances, the receipt of hearsay evidence may be so prejudicial as to have a tendency to deprive a party of fair hearing. (See Strain _v. Sarafan, 57 A.D.2d 525, 393 N.Y.S.2d 572, N.Y.A.D. (1977), where the hearsay testimony was of vital importance and should have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner...the petitioner was deprived of a meaningful hearing,_ Dukes v. New York City Housing Authority, 63 A.D.2d 690, 404 N.Y.S.2d 889, N.Y.A.D.

(1978), holding that the excessive reliance on hearsay evidence effectively denied petitioner the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, Claim of Evans, 254 A.D.2d 564, 678 N.Y.S.2d 696, N.Y.A.D. (3 Dept. 1998), (where in an unemployment compensation proceedings, administrative law judge (‘ALJ’) properly exercised discretion to exclude hearsay evidence to protect employer's fundamental right of cross-examination, where claimant proffered written hearsay statement, authored by acquaintance of the employer’s president, which allegedly indicated that claimant did not resign but was fired, but the acquaintance failed to answer subpoena directing him to testify at hearing, thereby denying employer the opportunity to cross-examine him on the statement, and Alvarado v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 583, 488 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1*' Dept. 1985), holding that a license suspension hearing against a boxer and his managers was faulty because of a lack of an opportunity “to cross-examine certain witnesses whose reports were introduced into evidence without their testifying, in violation of SAPA Section 306, subd. (3).” (Id. at 585, 488 N.Y.S.2d at 179); and Whereas here the DOE did not appear at the hearing, did not present a case-in-chief and made no substantive effort to controvert the testamentary and documentary evidence, but none was submitted by the Parent and the credibility of the testamentary and documentary evidence, need not be rebutted by the agency and the lack of documentary evidence is clearly relevant and material to the issues to be determined; and Whereas| find there is no documentary and testamentary evidence, submitted by the Parent in this case to be adjudged credible, uncontroverted or conclusive in this case; and Whereas as noted above, the DOE’s failure to present a case at the hearing is a concession that it denied the student a FAPE and that the Parent is entitled to the relief she seeks and this leaves, as the primary issue to be resolved through impartial hearing, what relief and/or compensatory education remedy, if any, is available and appropriate to remediate the denial of aFAPE. (SRO No. 17-033); and Whereas it is noted that the DOE was required under the due process procedures set forth in New York State law, to address its burdens in the due process hearing context by describing its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate relief and/or compensatory education remedy that most reasonably and efficiently could place the student in the position that he would have been but for the denial of a FAPE. (See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 457 [2d Cir. 2015], cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2022 [2016], quoting Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that the "ultimate award [of compensatory education] must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place’"]); and Whereas when, as here, the DOE does not present any case at the hearing, the hearing, the hearing process essentially becomes an “inquest” as to the appropriate relief; and Whereas the DOE has conceded liability by failing to present a case and meet its burden under the law because New York State law has placed the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing on the school district, unlike states which align the burden of production and persuasion consistent with Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S.

49, 58-62 [2005]; and Whereas it is not an IHO's responsibility to craft the DOE’s position regarding the primary issue in the case, for the denial of FAPE and the undersigned finds that the DOE failed to adhere to the requirements of the law, has denied the student in this case a FAPE and that the Parent is entitled to the relief she has requested; and Whereas when turning to the question of whether the DOE should be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parent's claim (Burlington, Florence and Cerra, Supra), the Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from the instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank.

G., 459 F.3d at 364-65); and Whereas a private school placement must be "proper under the Act." (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15 and Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129 and Matrejek, 471 F. Supp.

2d at 419); and Whereas a Parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement. (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 14); and Whereas the private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (See Carter, 510 U.S. 7; SRO No. 08-085; 08-025; 08-016; 07-097; 07-038; 02-014 and 01-105); and Whereas the Parents also need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) and when determining whether the parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]]); and Whereas there is no request for compensatory educational services in this case and an IHO cannot determine the amount of compensatory education that a student requires unless the record provides him with sufficient “insight about the precise types of education services the student needs to progress.” (Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008] citing Branham _v. District_of

Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005]); and Whereas pertinent findings to enable an IHO to tailor the ultimate award to the student’s unique needs should include the nature and severity of the student’s disability, the student's specialized educational needs, the link between those needs and the services requested, and the student's current educational abilities. (See Branham v. District_of

Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005], see also Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008]); and Whereas the Parent has the burden of “propos[ing] a well-articulated plan that reflects the student’s current education abilities and needs and is supported by the record.” (See Phillips v. District of Columbia, 2010 WL 3563068, at *6, 55 IDELR 101 [D.D.C. Sept.

13, 2010] quoting Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt ( “Nesbitt II"), 583 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172, 51 IDELR 125 [D.D.C. 2008]); and Whereas State regulations provide in relevant part that "[t]he decision of the impartial hearing officer shall be based solely upon the record of the proceeding before the impartial hearing officer and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. The decision shall reference the hearing record to support the findings of fact." (See 8 NYCRR 200.5]j][5][v]); and Whereas the record in this case is devoid of evidence evidencing the appropriateness of the relief sought by the Parent, and does not support a finding that the Parent is entitled to the relief sought (Supra) and it is unfortunate that the agency forced the Parent in this case to bring the matter to a hearing, when it offered no evidence that it provided the student with a FAPE but the Parent could not meet the standard regarding the appropriateness of the relief sought; and Whereas the Parent was offered the opportunity to retain counsel before proceeding to a hearing and declined to do so (T-4-6); and Whereas the sworn statement of the Parent indicates that the student is entitled to the SETSS services via an IESP (T-6-13); and Whereas is well settled that the enforcement of an IHO's order or the parties’ agreements or can properly be sought by filing an administrative complaint with the State Education Department's Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) pursuant to applicable federal and state regulations, or in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See 34C.F.R. §§ 300.151-300.153, 8 NYCRR 200.5[I], A.T. v. New York State Educ. Dep't., 1998 WL 765371, at *7(E.D.N.Y. 1998), Blazejewski v. Bd. of Educ., 560 F. Supp. 701 (W.D.N.Y. 1983), SRO Nos.: 06

130, 04-085 & 99-004), see also A.R. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 407 F.3d 65, 78 n.13 (2TM Cir. 2005) (noting that IHOs have no enforcement mechanism of their own), SRO Nos.: 04-100 & 04-007 (recognizing that enforcement of prior orders of an [HO and/or a SRO are not properly determined by a SRO), SRO No.: 03-071 (holding that petitioner's enforcement remedies include judicial enforcement pursuant to CPLR Article 78, an action in federal court, or VESID administrative complaint procedure), SRO No.

01-086 (holding that petitioner's enforcement request was not properly before a SRO; petitioner's remedy was to seek judicial enforcement of the [HO's tuition reimbursement award), SRO No. 99-4, (holding that respondent's remedy was to seek enforcement in state or federal court, citing Blazejewski, 560 F. Supp. 701, A.T., 1998 WL 765371) and SRO Nos.: 06-044, 02-086, 04-006, 02-011 & 97-64); and Whereas no evidence was submitted regarding the Parent’s preferred SETSS provider, “ ” (T-14); and Whereas the record was left open for the rest of the day for the Parent to submit documentary evidence supporting her request (T-15); and Whereas no such documentary evidence was ever submitted by the Parent; and Whereas the DOE did not initiate this impartial hearing (DPC); and Whereas to demonstrate the appropriateness of the relief sought, the Parent need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the student to benefit from instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65); and Whereas in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the Parent has failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a claim of the relief sought by the Parent, including but not limited to tuition reimbursement. (SRO No. 04-049); and Whereas there being nothing in the record consisting solely of the Parent's sworn statement submissions that sustains a finding that the Parents have not cooperated with the CSE; and Whereas the Parent has submitted the testimony of (1) witness on direct examination, live and not via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5|j][3][xii][f]; and Whereas the DOE having waived its right to contest that testimony and/or cross examine the Parents’ witness by failing to appear at the hearing; and Whereas the DOE has failed to meet its burden under the law and the Parents’ submission clearly reflects that the relief sought meets the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary that permits the student to benefit from that relief. (Gagliardo & Frank G., supra); and Whereas SETSS are not defined in State or federal laws or regulations and are not identified on the State continuum of special education services. (SRO No. 16-044); and Whereas a reference to the service as "direct" is in keeping with the language used in State regulations for consultant teacher services (See 8 NYCRR 200.6[d]); and Whereas State regulations distinguish between "direct consultant teacher services," which consist of "specially designed individualized or group instruction provided by a certified special education teacher . . toa student with a disability,” from "indirect consultant teacher services,” which consist of "consultation provided by a certified special education teacher . . to regular education teachers" (8 NYCRR

200.1[m] [emphasis added]; see 8 NYCRR 200.6[d]); and Whereas there is no evidence in the hearing record to establish that the Parent has incurred any financial obligation to pay the difference between the enhanced rate and the DOE rate. There is no evidence of a written agreement or an enforceable agreement between the private provider and the Parent to provide to services for the student, or that the Parent entered into an enforceable specific arrangement or otherwise enter into a viable written contract or an actual enforceable agreement with the private SETSS provider to pay the provider if the impartial hearing process did not result in an award of the enhanced rate; and Whereas therefore, even if the Parent prevailed on the merits of her claim, it would be unclear at this juncture whether or not any relief would be warranted absent evidence that the provider was owed additional compensation based on an agreement with the Parent or the DOE, beyond the established agency rate of $41 or $42 the agency has agreed to pay in the student’s IESP, by mandating his receipt of SETSS services; and Whereas the record does not evidence that the DOE failed to make available to the student special education programs and services on an equitable basis. (See Educ. Law § 3602-c[2][b][1]), because there is no evidence that the Parent complied with the DOE’s SETSS Authorization Form instructions that state in relevant part: “/f you need assistance locating a provider, or if you have any questions, please contact the DOE person listed in Section 1 of this form.”; and Whereas this IHO having determined that the manner of determining this “Final Order’ was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily; and Whereas the Parents’ oral arguments, discussions, concessions, testamentary evidence and this order having been recorded and annexed hereto; NOW therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED on the DOE’s DEFAULT and FAILURE TO APPEAR and after INQUEST that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost of the student’s receipt of all of the SETSS services he is entitled to under his last agreed upon IESP, for the entirety of the student’s 2019-2020 school year, at a rate not to exceed the DOE’s established rate for those services; and ORDERED on the DOE’s DEFAULT and FAILURE TO APPEAR and after INQUEST that the DOE shall forthwith conduct a re-evaluation of the student in all areas of his suspected disabilities not evaluated within the last two years; and it is further

ORDERED on the DOE’s DEFAULT and FAILURE TO APPEAR and after INQUEST that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene and consider all of the student’s evaluations upon their completion and any other relevant information and produce a new IESP for the remainder of the student’s 2020-2021 school year; and it is further

ORDERED on the DOE’s DEFAULT and FAILURE TO APPEAR and after INQUEST that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this decision/order is found to be either agreed upon by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record.

DATED: September 15, 2020

New York, New York Edgar De Leon - |.H.O.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public-School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov. (Rev. 07/09/20)