regression occurred after break periods. Ex. 132. He found that it did not. He also noted that M. was not at a point at which an emerging skill needed immediate, and intensive attention to develop properly. He explained these findings to the IEP team, which then discussed whether ESY services were warranted for the six-week break during the summer of 1998. The team found, based on this information, that they were not. While the parents did not agree with this conclusion, it was based on observations that indicated that M. would not significantly regress during the break period, followed by a thorough discussion among the members of the IEP team regarding M.’s unique needs. That is the key requirement under the law, and it was clearly complied with here. See Adams, 195 F.3d at 1150 (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated above, I find that
holding that a determination of the proper esy services must be contemplated by the childs iep and linked to his or her developmental goals holding that abusive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of the childs home supports conclusion that childs surroundings endanger his physical or emotional wellbeing holding that a parents rights must yield to the childs right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent healthy safe environment a parent cannot protect his parental rights by merely stating that he does not wish to have his rights terminated internal citations omitted holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to defendants who were providing transportation services to a disabled child as part of the childs iep