to the respondent parents the children were not never from the home or having an environment injurious to the welfare of the my children what is a happening is an early march of two thousand and ten the  that on the shelter care basis that the environment was injurious to the welfare of the other two children and now the response father lack the basic parenting skills to properly care for the minor children that was the basis for remov nine three fifty there was a sinfully a factual basis entered on the record though the stipulation in it on the record primarily concerned how the parents were failing to provide adequate medical care for the at that hearing the whole primary focus of that business hearing was of regarding the living conditions of the house the living conditions of the actual physical living conditions in terms of cleanliness and how sanitary it was those were the primary mar parents believe that the circuit court err when it made its findings now in the usual one fifth the i think there are a couple things in here that there are couple issues in here that the average practitioner the person on the street handling these cases here we have no real evidence in the record what really were the conditions of the ball so now two years later we want to say the parents have made reasonable progress towards the living environment of the home well how can the court really say house was not clean that was the reason for removal they indicated that at the time you know the impact were intact were with you know right up until the time that they took the child had been constantly urging the parents to clean that you know clean the floor really you know that gets into another little problem with this case is the court found the parents failed to make reasonable progress within nine months from before well when the police were saying this is about these this is it's there's i  this hearing was about each parent respective environments at the time here and that's what a lot of testimony concerned especially from the caseworker and from the homemaker what were the conditions of the parents home at the time of of  evidence and what the parents presented especially in regards to arm the respondent mother who actually did provide pictures of what her vironment was she provided testimony of well what her living environment was as of the day of this and if you look at the evidence that the parents as of the date of the fitness hearing we believe that the evidence shows that they did have some sort of suitable living environment for the for the minor children now the best case worker still didn't believe it was suitable at the time and they high functioning man i mean they struggle you know that they maybe are a little less functional and so within the meaning of the verb provide a perfect house and i believe if you look at the testimony the same warning seemed to be like she was focusing on him perfection parent first going to father or mother but it happens to be true you are going to permanently see which the rights of these parents permanently extinguished the rights of these kids to know their parents i mean you just give me that it just seemed very ha living environment was i don't believe the homemaker indicated that there were still mice and rats in the house as of the date of that really and it really comes down to what you know having done so adequately within a reasonable amount of time where their efforts to improve their house were they reasonable that's one of the things that it just seems kind of unclear to me what was what really was going on i think part of that as a s terminations cases are starting to slip toward what we saw yesterday in mental health cases where hearings would be from sort of show something in front of the court and we don't really hear any kind of often the case workers did indicate that for the most part of the time the responding father had done most of the things she'd asked him she said there were a couple things that were that were still in need of work but for the most part he if he'd done in contrast to the respondents presented their testimony which essentially said they had a loving relationship based on all the evidence they were there the evidence presented by the state in regards to the foster mother you know was what was sure i believe that the court found the foster mother to be very legal but it's kind of short on details and a short on facts in the direct examination he talked about how the kids were doing and there was no this did the kids were doing for for almost two years and i'm not going to belabor the best interest point i mean the arguments were made by mr daly from both sides parents love the kids kids the parents but if the stability is what the state's argument is and so all  be respectful request these are important issues and i think what happens is because you know it's juvenile cases and you're dealing with states attorneys offices who are underfunded and feeling public defenders who don't really have the money and the resources