by clear and convincing evidence that the mother did not make reasonable progress in regard to achieving the goals of her service plan which was designed to correct the by clear and convincing evidence that the mother's not demonstrate reasonable interest here served in the court also found that the state did not prove that the mother did not demonstrate clear and convincing evidence and this is just a case of the terminations should go on to the next stage but and the allegation again is failure to make reasonable progress within a nine month period which is nine months not a reasonable time period to chief reasonable progress i think the response to that is give support if it's a first nine months and however i think it's not unreasonable in fact i think it's should be done to consider the circumstances of every case and all the extraneous  grief that there's case law supreme court law that says said being incarcerated is not an excuse or a justification i don't mean to imply that to this panel however what i do mean to imply is that that should be taken into consideration not as an excuse but as one of the facts of the case that make it different from other  what can prevent a parent from achieving reasonable progress in satisfying service plans in my case or that is when visitation was terminated less than two months adjudication the mother was incarcerated they had department head arrange this is between the mother and the children but after forty five to sixty days after the the coordinator order for bedding for baby visitation between the mother and the children no justification of that of course maybe now for course the justification is that there was a good deal of effect as a result of the visitation with the mother according to their therapist finally whities a nine month period not a reasonable time frame or picture to demonstrate whether or the fitness hearing it was the same case worker and as matter fact this case worker we have a nine month period measuring stick from september to may this caseworker was not involved with this mother the entire nine month period i would be i don't know if i call it guessing but i would say caseworker was involved in this case four or five months of the nine month period that does give you a different view in regard to her stafford's doesn't give a different view by a different person there's different perspective about what kind of effort what kind of progress that they've made as mayor fact i believe that in this case  the department did more to retarded or hinder the mother achieving the purposes of the of the service plan if the child's identity its relationship with the foster home says of attachments child's wishes and long term goals i don't believe that apply in this case based on the age of the risk related substitute will be served by terminations however in this case at the time of the terminations procedure at the time of fitness and if a child with the best interests of the children w not in a permanent place they would remain in place since i believe it was at least one was only one as two children but it was not a permanent placement the foster parents in each of their placements was not interested in providing posters of adoption also the best interest hearing there was a testimony from the mothers relatives indicating that there was a close relationship between the mother and children when and if she was allowed to visit with them but the interesting thing is this the mother testified that she was going to be paroled eligible for release approximately eighteen months it's it was it was spring of twenty fifteen my point in bringing that up is that the children would have to be placed in permanency place maybe at least that long to determine whether or it is in their best interest for the placement in question to provide purpose through adoption so the state might have indicated that she would be in jail forever look where the kids are that the caucus is running on the kids yet either placement i think flies in the face of establishing that burden of proof there were less the court found that the state did satisfy its a burden that determination parental rights mean that this panel has no right that the court's order terminating and finding a fit was against amenophis way to the evidence i think if the pedal looks in all four corners of the fact situation the mother circumstances of not excuse but her incarceration should be a sitter and not dismissed the short time period the minimum time period the fact that the children were  permanent placement and the and the fact that the record stablish using this as contained my grief the mother had competed had completed perching classes the mother had completed drug and alcohol counseling the mother was due to complete her mental mental health counseling and again within the four corners there was testimony that when the mother was first placed the tartan oppressions she was not eligible for parenting classes so she was denied by the department to be placed in a situation or corrections for her to eat and do her parenting classes and i think i should be taken into consideration in and employment i want to point out the obvious case of circumstances if that was possible to achieve i don't think the court gave that due consideration we would asked spaniel this court to reverse the man  case i don't know how to go about that except maybe ask leave to file a motion to supplement the record later if a court thinks it's necessary but get to the point i would respond in mali was convicted of  trying to sell five year old d p n to prostitution out on the streets here in springfield she was arrested oh i know morse nineteen and she pleaded  guilty thank you was scuse me it was july fifth the thirteenth of twelve she pleaded guilty and was incarcerated for six years and the investigation revealed that she was selling out try to sell the other two children a prostitution all three children were sexually acting out when they first came into care which indicates they may have been sold into prostitution but a state israel excuse she took some of these prison courses there's evidence of that i it's easy to make a mistake when there are so many so many facts here but i think i think mr pryor was incorrect when he said that she completed parenting classes i don't think she did the trouble i have and that in this jail case is a good example and is what one of these prison courses in jail they talk about one of the parents going to anger management was a four day course they talk  about one of the parents going to run a classes there were eight sessions so i mean can you go from selling children on the street into prostitution five year olds six year olds seven year old children to being a good parent because you want to afford a class i don't think so judge sanchez was in the best position here to determine the weight and the credibility of this one witness's testimony only one nobody objected to her hearsay statements there were four lawyers there nobody nobody questioned her about her statements nobody objected to it here's a comes in for whatever value it has and and judge sanchez was in the best position to determine its value as to the best interests as i said all three of these children were sexually acting out when they were taken into care i think i have it because the criminal case i'm sure my friend from the attorney general's office can figure out how to supplement the record however before he wastes time doing that my recollection of the record the facts of the case is that the criminal case the resolution of the criminal case and certainly not the certified copy of conviction or plea was part of the state's case he was a stipulation entered into by the by their approved by the courts and accrete to by the state that the environment was injuries because of the mother's use of drugs on although we're close in age i believe my recollection is that parenting classes were completed by the mother  before the terminations procedure before she went into jail  by my colleagues argument sounds like in regard to the class but it was this case about this case is about a statute that doesn't exist if they were true in a parental rights