1996. “[Wjhether the parents of a dis abled child are entitled to reimbursement for the costs of a private school turns on two distinct questions: first, whether the challenged IEP was adequate to provide the child with a free appropriate public education; and second, whether the private educational services obtained by the parents were appropriate to the child’s needs.... If the challenged IEP was adequate, the state has satisfied its obligations under the IDEA and the necessary inquiry is at an end.... Only if a court determines that a challenged IEP was inadequate should it proceed to the second question.” M.C. ex rel. Mrs. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Ed., 226 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir.2000) (citations omitted). See Walczak v. Florida Union Free School Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 134 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether an IEP was adequate to
holding that the evidence did not support a finding that the parents intentionally abandoned their child holding that court may order reimbursement of private school expenses incurred by parents of handicapped child in successful challenge to iep brought under eha predecessor to idea stating that it is beyond cavil that appropriate relief would include a prospective injunction directing the school official to develop and implement at public expense an iep placing the child in a private school and affirming reimbursement award against petitioner local school district  holding that parents possessed a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship of their child where they filed a section 1983 claim arising out of the suicide of their son while he was at school holding that because the challenged iep was adequate the defendant school board could not be ordered to reimburse the parents for expenses incurred as a result of their decision to remove their child from the  program holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board