and please court of the council my names will be read i represent roman holiday father of the children involved in this case i had difficulty writing a memorandum there's a lot of cover maybe didn't get it all covered maybe didn't write as well a father after a fitness hearing and for best interests you the law is clear that in these kinds of situations you cannot terminate rights until you've had a best interest hearing after  the court terminated the premier rights i stated the court i think you have to terminate the rights are you supposed to i said i think before you can terminate the right you're supposed to have a best interest hearing at this point the ri so i'm with him and i don't want to anger him but he's told me what his opinion is that's at worst and past he's made you change the person on me because you know that's not my burden to prove it the best interests sharing the burden of proof is on the state it's not on me and it appears to me when he says those kinds of things i've got i've got the burden of convincing him that it's in the best interests of my spine a thing to be said yes this hearing which led you to believe that he ok i'll give you an answer ok these kids at that time he said bessie had three of them more than half their life they'd been with them more than half their life most of them had not lived together they'd have several places separate  lived ones live somewhere since two thousand or one was placed somewhere in two thousand and six and just recently moved before the fitness hearing again so they've been moved all over the place the testimony concerning best interests was really weak they added a psychologist testified when we interviewed him in two thousand and five said she talked to him for three hours then an m m p s a personality test which involved five hundred fifty seven true false questions and that took up part of the three the permanency goal determination of plan rights it was change they didn't move forward on by quite two thousand and seven really sort of straight he was having an awful lot economic difficulty in two thousand and seventy got a good job  want my kids and came into court and try to change them trying to get his kids from and then now there's been some difficulty there in the middle but the whole idea here is then you know inadequate supervision on the part of the mom future your client will be able to have the children returned to his custody the court will be able to determine that the near future because your client will fully comply with all of the re and fourteen now it's operators that's why there is this provision that term a nation of parental rights occurs when parents are given an opportunity of nine months or maybe eighteen if you haven't lot of visitors when the visiting with him until september of two thousand and eight and what happened was he was already all worked all week he wanted to cater from here to visit with him and mcdonald's with the other kids and they said to him response he gets from this kid so i said why are you such a bad son and then say started throwing stuff all over the place and making a big mess and what happened was he said take sack out they took sack out in my private stay there and clean up prematurely but there was no reference was a pretty big deal that that's a huge step in the case but but there was no intent to actually and the case right there because they in fact did go on with responded participating through counsel and the best interest hearing and the judge also went and headed in chambers and talk to the three younger younger boys and there was no indication that this was somehow just a simple pro form hearing in which he was participating which means that i missed this court believe that patrick wandered in its past really from prejudice which is a very severe finding to mate and then once to send it back for a new best interest hearing  a different coach the defendant i certainly find it has already received all the relief that he would be entitled to which is being able to go to a best interest hearing and participate at it he's already got that will be fattening this means that the is moot as far as that issue is concerned because he's got all the relief he would be entitled to under the states in the states and the only thing he could be entitled to that he has not received which he would have checked to is the new disorder type groups as well but she never even wanted to get that assessed and if you did make that effort which you claim one time was unsuccessful and in the several years and now he's got a good job now he's got financial resources and now he's still refusing to get that not saying it was any convictions or anything like that but he was required to do that and it was an important situation that was according to the caseworkers who were informing him this is preventing you from getting your children back and because  things are developing at that time it's not able to get access to the home to realize he doesn't have working utilities so that means adequate housing and working utilities becomes the new issue and the nurse asked the same information that domestic side violence start getting added to the plan after actually nears evaluation so during the second nine month period new tasks are starting to down on him so what might seem to be somewhat reasonable progress after six months by just definitely by the end of the second nine month period and shown that he's nowhere close to getting this kid's return to his care because of the problems with housing his lack of services  based upon the evidence for some time right and so at least as that they do that hearing one of the children what's more recently moved into a home which is still open is it's it's considered a been placed presidential rather than with an adoptive family but essentially the children old enough to know exactly what they wanted and they were able to express that with the childish and the judge was able to make that finding with regard to the service plans that were proposed your service plans are supposed to be designed with the objective of curing the problems that caused the removal to begin with that's the whole concept and the cause of the removal here was the mother's failure to properly was home i'm not sure about that i think that's correct they were together that's correct they were together but the second one they were not together and they've been separated and it was a matter of her not supervising the kids going on the tracks court it's by him with a letter to the judge which you have a copy he wrote a letter and said i send my kids are in custody i want him i'm you know i'm working i'm sure you know i'd like to pester my child and then he came to the jury for do during october i mean he became aware in september there was a problem they were taking an office but he's living in a different community and all i would say is all right so they're both not doing a good job supervision let's put that service but know that's there's no question he says he's been at odds with them it's like you want to come into my house and essentially you're not trying to help me you try to discover evidence to prove that i'm not