hearing officers, that determine prevailing party status. Artis v. District of Columbia, 543 F.Supp.2d 15, 22 (D.D.C.2008). Put simply, a hearing officer’s statements are not determinative. See Bush ex rel. A.H. v. District of Columbia, 579 F.Supp.2d 22, 30 (D.D.C.2008) (noting that a hearing officer’s conclusion that a school was a prevailing party and did not deny FAPE was not determinative). Here, the Hearing Officer found that only one of the issues raised at the administrative hearing had any merit. Compl. Ex. B, 10-15. Moreover, the Hearing Officer’s determination as to that issue did not actually change the parties’ legal relationship because Friendship Edison’s obligation was contingent on its obtaining the parent’s consent. Compl. Ex. B 18; see also Artis, 543 F.Supp.2d at 24 (<HOLDING>). Thus, to comply with the order, Friendship
holding that the manner in which the parties to an agreement designate their relationship is not controlling holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship holding that the mclendon standard applied where an agreement between the parties granted the parties joint legal custody of the child with physical custody to the mother and the agreement had been adopted by the trial court holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding that an order requiring the agency to search the records did not constitute courtordered change in the relationship of the parties