that there was no reasonable effort to follow the dictates in service plan she did not comply with impatient drug treatment she it has against the manifest weight the evidence that's what the mother's claim she did makes she did make progress in this during the service plans when she wasn't in jail she didn't that permitted anybody to use drugs in her home she was open on this she made changes in her own household it was satisfactory if i may yes prior to the petition being filed wasn't there a safety plan in effect back in august of fifteen yes i believe you're on your own and the basis of the safety plan is because she was pregnant and was testing positive for heroin arrest correct the basis of the filing a petition was because of her drug use yes she did ever took possession of the child throughout the course of the  case coming into care was continued drug correct and if that drug use continued throughout the course of the case how can it be against manifest weight of the evidence when at the time of terminations she has yet to  she was making some progress and the service plan was any of progress related to drug use at all army was asking about as you mentioned we're looking at whether or not this is against the manifest we did the evidence into stated differently where did the opposite conclusion is clearly appearing how can we say that based on the evidence before this court repeatedly she we were we were we ever at a point in this case where we could say it's likely that we will soon be able to return the children to mom's ca suggest you rather if given the opportunity to go incarcerated by trying to complete the service plans and as she progressed from the initial start of this whole case that she may changes in the house or who those who live there minimum standards she met her parenting she had a member of standards for supervising the skills and  sixteen to may two thousand and seven see the response was do the following major services get appropriate housing get sufficient income complete all recommended substance abuse treatment complete megatron screens twice now respond are you she made reasonable progress when she went through detox had casa communication with her cup caseworker signed release consents completed a substance or complete that counsel was there any ever any evidence to suggest that even though she did not go to treatment and she was actually drug free not that i know of your hon and i guess by going with that i mean she when she wants you detox she wants a detox of the first time in october from one remember and then she went to detox again back in december so she has her lea back in that one time which demonstrates her continued drug use of the goals the respondent completely in this case will not bring the children back to her art here in the near future while it was whil fail to remain drug free a person cannot make any root cannot make any efforts if they continue use drugs response efforts were too late there are other bills which one was supposed to complete and should not complete those as well the state prove that goal here all the children have done well in their respective homes the children two of the children living with their grandmother and the other child as you see of the vis living with her with his great aunts now all the children have done well near their house in their respective homes their been doing well they've bonded well with their house with their stuff with their their respective homes both of the the foster homes said they would provide fifteen years in prison there's no way i mean if she were found if she were found guilty then there's no way they respond that would be able to have her children back here in the she wasn't drunk guilty she still had to complete those goals and and after she when she when she after she gets to that point now respond to argues that the children are now split up among the home which is one factors  children their children should not have to wait that for that for the response you get to get fit therefore the truck court did not air and the state asked this court to a from the lower court  further questions i don't see any of this time thank you