king has been made to correct the problem resulted in job being moved in the first place in this particular case the state felt as though she was not making the reasonable progress that was necessary and they send her back they must have dealings that patient with what they're doing and when they give a certificate to somebody that cessation half you did well here's her certificate we say she's done then she completed that  gentleman i guess about five months maybe a little longer and he had two teenage daughters twelve thirteen years old she also had her older son michael who was during this period of time  daughter was taken michael was about the same age the daughter would have been at the time the rights were terminated the daughters of this this gentleman who was residing with her would leave his daughters there with her and attended had no concerns friends of michael's who would come over and visit in the home testified as well that basic they have a normal michael and this is all the evidence  not just about michael is in a high school he's always lived in the synthroid area other than for one brief period of time and i think she moved over to the bedroom used area but she's generally always been in the maybe in a different home and by that i mean find another place to live obviously she had a rough life before and we don't dispute that but during this period of time when the child was taken up to the she was terminated she had her son michael all those times and he said to graduate high school the gentleman that was involved in her life it is is very important i think because an awesome individual you know he had these daughters he was a positive influence on michael on all these various things and it was obvious that this is a different kind of person that she was with before now i suggested this or that just because a relationship brings a doesn't mean that you're not you're not stating that you're not able  to be a parent we all know relationships come and go and i think he had this case is that this was not the kind of a break up that this woman would have had five years before would have been from some guy no clear and convincing evidence she's not there is so much in this record that shows he had a band that she was meeting right that we believe that his findings against the manifest weight of the evidence individually the night long period that they were going to be presenting evidence on now this is pretty clear in the senate they have to do that the statute was specifically everything's sense and might be fine additional line period look at all that and then just say in some mining boom period she did make reasonable progress the judge never in this you know i mean there wasn't there wasn't questioning specific to a nine month period or no second night not known and i think the argument the state is trying to meet at this point in time while the service plan you know they were talking about service plans at different periods of time but that's not the same thing if you take it back now analyze it scrutinize the records you know set out date you might be able to come up with things that the evidence didn't come in teeth on that i don't find any case out in the really that has decided this pacific issue based on this statute but we felt like it was important enough to me to raise that because that is one of the reasons  they'd make some mention that she wasn't taking medication piskies me in the trial or they had they've made mention of that if you actually examine the record she had taken that she had an allergic reaction she had just been evacuated again for me before the doctor didn't prescribe any medication so as far as counseling and that type of thing she had been doing it she had been stable as we sat in for quite a period of time since the doctor even evaluated her or him testify which would have been about a year so i don't think the state prove either with regard to whether or not it was something that would unreasonably prevent her from performing her duties she had been performing with regard to her son michael now i know parties a pleading that specifies the nine month period or periods relied on the pleading shall be father the served on the parties no later than three weeks before the date set by the court for closer of discovery make this a mandatory duty on the part of the state period it should have been arguing that it shouldn't i'm saying this point when it could have been easily corrected  the state mandatorily required to do you know at this point in time courting the rules of civil procedure you didn't wait any defect to the pleading is weighed by statute and that is the controlling statute and the reason why it's appropriate to find a way just because one in in they read they made no complaint about prejudice or surprise they don't make any argument that it was  why it's appropriate to apply waiver in this case is because there were five grounds in this instance each nine month period subsequent to the initial nine month period is a separate grant there were there were four nine month period after the initial nine month period expired and then there were six months proximately after that so there are not the state the state never talked about any particular nine month period it was all the evidence was all sat there in the court never specified what nine month period his rule was based on that's correct progress but in waiting he said you know the third allegation is proved which always said was in a nine month period and you could construe that as and i will i will argue that it is all but the reason why it's appropriate to find a waiver in this case is because there is that there is another ground that has nothing to do with this defect in the sleeping that is patient to find the mother unfit years ago we're talking about a child who has had five years now of nosed ability and no idea of where home is and what her future is going to be and those are another reason why this way the mother could have should have said something but if you reverse this and do not find the other ground and remain  have post traumatic stress syndrome are a personality disorder not otherwise specified and that she had she was sort of an i q of seventy four which is borderline mental impairment she is he did not find her i q was the impediment to parenting that he defined the posttraumatic stress syndrome and were abominable she had several psychiatric hospital patients between the ages of ten and fourteen she'd been married to three men and had a pair o more all  d been abusive and one had been physically abusive and one of them had also been sexually abusive she was totally u nsettled in all of her relationships with men are she she moved consequently she had moved out one point moved in with a man who was a known sexual offender and at that point she had her twelve year old son with her when the man expressed some desire to perpetrate a crime on her twelve year old son she sent the subtle way but she continued to live with the sex she just simply those are pretty much all things that preceded the beginning of the studio mostly most of which you just cited no i mean the was so early so young and that these these things are are chronic and a personality disorder also had to do with her associating with a very dangerous man dangerous not only to her but to  from her children and her of her lack of having any kind of discussion about this understand her her problem the duck because mickey express any opinion about her ability to discharge her parental responsibilities as to her fifteen year old son he said he said at that point my son is a lot different than a small daughter and that perhaps you know she might be able to with a lot more able to fend for himself than than a young female child particularly you know since she has a proclivity to associate with men that are physically abusive or sexually abusive for instance the the one man she had accused of attempted rape she continued to associate with him just as she made comments that her  that this was her prognosis was poor guarded he did not see that she would become fit to parent within a reasonable time well he said he said  what he said he was asked well how long do you think she'll be able get there he said he would like to see six months to a year of law just to cool stability right being in one place utilities having a home having rest having no instances of domestic violence and no substance abuse record other than an opinion was rendered ten months before the case actually went to trial is his report he wrote a report and and it was ten months before is that correct well then the evidence at trial didn't evidence filled at the time of the hearing he lived in the same residence which the c f s deemed appropriate for at least seven months during that time period she had utilities no arrests no instances of domestic violence and no substance abuse i mean so wasn't there some reason it would never pretty much a showing that she'd met the terms of the doctor's criteria for a reasonable period of time by the time of the hearing her her own actions continue to persuade the court that was making his diagnosis and prognosis was correct because she didn't mean well and she can you know she she she she did not didn't demonstrate stability at all all for that reason you know i mean there are two components to that statute right i mean you have to show that she has a mental impairment yes and that there's sufficient justification to believe that the ability to destroy sproul responsibilities diagnosis was correct that she was not stable she had a personality disorder and she had the post traumatic stress syndrome and she was not making progress after all that and then she had not had one term i know one of them was not described but she didn't just demonstrate six months to eight years bill and she hadn't gotten to that point yet because mickey did correct to require that the nine months periods be specified it would be certainly clear matters up to the petitioner doesn't get that unless they raise it they should have race follow it is a clear direction by the legislature and if you look at the legislative history and everything this is exactly what they were trying to avoid try to avoid exactly what happened here a mistake not giving years this this girl is still no those who are mothers she's ten years old she sees her mother they're having visits it's oh ok this is what we've set up under the statute you see in these people continue to make reasonable progress and if they are is what i think that that statute and i haven't there's no cases out there will this it's been decided or so i think it's something that means to some point in time be addressed but the other thing i want to point that six months to a year of stability you know no problems would show him a to get under go there and he doesn't say it has to be in patient there if you look at the record if he was saying what is one term their long term therapy is going to counseling doing things doesn't mean you're going in patient doesn't mean you're going to be institutionalized nobody since he needed to be but the simple fact here is that a year before he saw this lady and since that time she continued to do everything she was supposed to do whatever the c f s told her to do she was carrying her son michael who at the time the other daughter was dating was like ten or eleven as the fact that she broke up this guy and i have to show what god made you were saying is true i don't think that just because she broke up with somebody that that's loose everything by clear and convincing evidence it could also be you're going to look at to continue their relationship to me to me that shows the development as opposed to the way she used to be hanging out with these guys beat the snot out of her and then she just stuck around this show with physical well being like that but guess what