my name's john o'brien and i represent the appell this case involves a term nation of poets primal rights in order to terminate parental rights courts must take a two step process first the court must find by clear inventing evidence that the parent is unfit next in a separate distinct hearing the court in the best interest of the viners was an error and against the manifest way evidence specifically the truck or air in its finding because there was no adoption in the offing determination provided no permits were continuity or closure for the miners moving best interest however many of the cases have held that it's a factor for the courts to consider and it's germination the unique facts of this case lend itself to a situation where the court can consider that the lack of adoptive parent along with the really severance of ties between the minors and the mother as a case where that factor could weigh heavily i germination you're right that there are needs that it's need isn't the lack of an adoption prospect really based on the position of the foster parents in their position that they believe they can maximize opportunities for their children by not adopting and yet were to more likely be able to ensure that they are able to get their college education pursued things of that nature it is your honor and there are a number of reasons that the foster parents don't believe that it one of those was that she didn't feel that is appropriate with the mother still being living and that minors having other biological family in the country and while you know we're we're not here to have to contend with their foster placement is inappropriate or anything of that nature the miners have done an exceptional job acclimating to their foster placement and they've really thrived on the placement the appellant's contention here is that the termination our rights did nothing to change their foster situation it did nothing to allow the foster parents to adopt the minors move or it was a really unnecessary and somewhat punitive action by the interest or why is they have not the case here is as i mentioned earlier the facts here very unique the mother when we continue mother was convicted of permitting sexual abuse of a minor children who are rather over the most children going through this process how is it their best interest well the the miners in this case as you mentioned are  fourteen i believe they are six fourteen sixteen years old and there they are sessions with their therapists and the testimony they provided indicate that once the mother had relocated back to india and leading up to her relocation and her terminations she was not allowed any time to act with the miners outside a single letter the miners expressed themselves and their therapist expressed that they've already really had closure in this situation they've had no contact with the mother it's  on the minors are not further harmed by any destructive behavior the polite and there is no contact from the mother to free the children from the trial court also made the determination that the also testified that she received a lot less stress and the girls once the brotherhood relocated back to their additionally as noted in the trial court's ruling that the miners did not have to concern foster parents of the minors the grosses have been volved in their lives and march eighth of two thousand and thirteen all the documentation of record and testimony from the minors indicate that they have accepted it very well that foster case a pulse rights were terminated without an adoptive parent waiting and without any prospective change in legal status for the minors percentages produced no benefit to the minors and no benefit to the foster family determinations cases of the record overwhelmingly supports the trust court's best interest finding and its counsel advance there's no issue as to whether or not respondent is and fifty is in the standard is not whether or not  there's a legal parent still living or whether or not term nation is perp is necessary the standard of course is whether term nation is in the minors best interests  responded differently effectively are use it terminations not warranted because it would not more decisively sever her relationship with the minors where as she can see she's unfit she's got no relationship with a minor if she's left the country and she's demonstrated no ability or inclination to parent the minors or provide a home for them so these are extreme circumstances demonstrating that it is in the best interests of the minors to terminate her parental rights she's no in any position there's no indication that in the near in the distant future that she would parent them there's also the factor of the miners being in a very loving foster home don't care our main concern is being provided a permanent family for them secondarily to that we would like to have whatever arrangement is best for them and including adoption adoption was one of the options but they had gone to the trouble of investigating what would be best for the minors and their opportunity to get college funds and so they were willing to do whatever it took for them to be permanent members of their family  i this is this is a truly overwhelming case in the standard course is whether or not the truck which is best interest finding is against the manifest way the evidence in order for the standard to the facts have to clearly demonstrate the court should  basically saying well in that case the prospects as i recall prospects of the da slim the prospects that respondent would ever be in a position to parent the minor that seems to be not likely for the reasons that have been explored this case let's assume hypothetically all other aspects of this case were true factors and here i have to emphasize again that this is not this case i mean the respondent or that the foster parents have made it clear that they want these children to be part of their family by whatever means is available including an option so this is this is a court issue perhaps but it does not apply for a case and it's only one factor and here you know the respondent is she is not she's made no effort to provide a home for these children to to parent them in any way and the children have been clear that they do not want contact with her the older miner has has been clear about that from the very beginning and the younger miner says she probably didn't want to live with responded probably ever in my life and she only might be ok with visits it was fine it still was in the us and doing services and there's no chance that that's going to happen there's no indication here and the facts that case were were different than what we're presented with here there the child had physical learning disabilities of belief that prevented the mother from from caring for the child moving for reason for that decision as to free the child from further harmful contact from her biological parents here as i mentioned earlier there's no there is no contact between the respondent child to