140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (“Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required.”). It noted our decision in Wyner that the SEHO does not have jurisdiction to enforce its own orders but that 'California’s CRP provides an avenue to enforce those decisions. The district court assumed “technically correct,” however, the Porters’ argument that Wyner did not make resort to the CRP obligatory but rather held only “that issues of non-compliance with an SEHO order may be brought before the [CRP].” Porter, 123 F.Supp.2d at 1196 (emphasis in original). Th IDEA establishes “elaborate and highly specific procedural safeguards,” evidencing that “Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures ... as it did upon the measurement of C.1985) (<HOLDING>). Requiring exhaustion of California’s CRP to
holding that state may not subject children and their parents to an additional step not required by the eha recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children holding that courts may require one or both parents to pay for a courtappointed attorney for their children recognizing that because the state has cognizable interests in the safety of children in its jurisdiction neglectful parents may be separated from their children