mother heard was not married at that time and living with the mother she gave birth to a child which is one of the children here the youngest for they could not find the response that he was living in chicago and finally they obtained service by publication he learned of this when the mother called a relative of the father and said they've taken my children away  the service by showed interest and therefore moved on to the terminations his parental rights and thereafter best interest of the father had difficulty following the service fine and as to the visitation he was up in chicago and was hardship or him to come down here or though and granted these are his children he on that council didn't d c s offer to pay for his transportation costs every other week since he had represented he could afford to do  reimbursement for the trips be that as may he did not come down by force at times he said he had difficulties caring for his grandmother  bather and do things for her and he was employed by his father who had a real estate to reduce the properties and  i just said get down to visit the children will counsel in this case the standard of review says it is to manage this weight of the evidence correct that's correct your i mean your client did so little really i can't think of anything that your client business because of that although during that time he could make visits he only went seven times out of forty and the reasons given were i'm taking care of my mother grandmother  visitation and the other one was doing his own thing and about they showed no animosity to the war why is that against the because he had difficulties completing his service this was a person of of merit the response while he was married he took care of the children when the wife was doing drugs and care for her that strike that he was married at that point and he cared for her disable husband washed him bathe them etc he did all these things it showed that he does have a concern for people and obviously a concern for his children basis for the basis for the child's removal he couldn't do much on that well could he do it was the mother who did the drugs and he moved on to the best interests here he did present evidence testify himself they did present evidence of his family and they're really clueless and they're very very concerned about the members of the family there in chicago and the argument out the responder was b they were kind and loving as a family there were many of them in chicago area they all testified that the responded loved this children and  would do better he said he would do better once you get out of prison that the other points he was sentenced to strike that he was up and i don't know the result he was charged with give you love than affection education was there any evidence of a home study or anything that had been done to check into his family members they've requested early on your honor but in the military and they grow up although they have great disruption in the early stages i suggest to the court that this would that be a disruption church or they would become drug addicts or really are something that but there's a major difference in your military and nalang gee we assumed that the kids in the military are with their parents going from place to place and that wasn't the case here that the judgment of the court was not against the man this where the evidence because it relied on the service fire and he didn't complete all the respond i can do is offer reversed and that the best interests of the chosen his judgment should be reversed and this should be remanded back to the trial court or may please the court counsel good morning or good afternoon your honor is my name is john zimmerman i'm from the fourth district prosecutor but if there is any case to do it the state contends that it is this case and regardless of the unfitness hearing or the fitness hearing the evidence produced by the state was through the c f s caseworker him a shilling she testified that the respondent was rated on satisfactory of both case review hearing the evidence that she stated was he failed to complete almost every requirement that she had counsel stated that the respondent had difficulties coming to springfield but as ever but i think an important point there is the father agreed to that and another statement counsel made was that the mother called the respondent and i feel like you didn't address the large gap between that the children were taken in april of two thousand and thirteen and respondent was not aware that the children were taken into custody until apparently seven months later what type of father is interested concerned and wants to take responsibility of his children doesn't know that his she called the c f s someone a couple months or a month after she found out the children were in custody or they called her and they were asking where's fine it was but she did not even know and it took until november until the respondent found out and then immediately called these but still that's a large portion of time for the respondent to not realize what's happening to his children at least his older child which he knew was this time anothe r point to make his respondent was mobile he was in st louis previous to this with some type of probation violation he's been in springfield one time i believe he was in springfield he was supposed to do a drug drop he did not do that he only did one out of three proposed drug drops and i think that shows that points towards his unfairness again in regards to visitation counsel said he only had forty five visits and attended seven i think that's also extremely telling regardless of the hardship that you face the alleged hardship and further he provided no form of employment to the state he did not provide any proof of safe learning environment so that is probably one reason another point is he was offered visitation and january of two thousand and fourteen and he didn't first make that until march so that's another three months i believe his child was born in april two thousand and thirteen he didn't even see his newborn until a whole year later when he was present at the visitations there was evidence that showed he did not interact much with the children he was on his phone or listening to music a majority of the time and the court the state contends properly found that the respondent failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest concerning responsibility and other finding was the failing to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions and while counsel states that he didn't have much control over the mother the fs case plan was created to remedy some of the situations which was the domestic violence which was between respondent and the mother prior to the children being taken away disposed pending the massive violence courses he didn't do that can take to go along with the best interest factors consisted of the children being in foster home for two years a long period of time they were safe secure adequately provided for there was no indication of any problems whatsoever with the foster families they had their own bedroom they had other foster siblings they attended schools they had friends the youngest child even had a speech impediment and the foster family ensured he received received speech therapy weekly further at the time of the best interest hearing the respondent was incarcerated so there was no way he would be able to provide him in type of safe environment for the children to live in and what he did ask was to put them in with his extended family but the children have had very brief if any interactions with their extended family and where the older child did have some more intensive interactions with the parents but they testified at that hearing they hadn't seen the children for an entire year and ye because they were in foster care but still just all this evidence shows that it was in the minors best interest to terminate the respondents rights and last but not least i think a very large factor was the disruptive factor if you would have the children move from their foster home if they've been in for the past two years they have attachments with their parents they call them mom and dad and then move them to chicago to live with extended family but they barely know and then move them in with responding later if he's wanted on car street of which i believe he still is incarcerated that is just obviously not in the minors best interests and i believe the court agreed with that finding as we do so in conclusion when looking at the best interest factors the state showed by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in the minors best interest to terminate the respondent fathers parental rights and we asked this court to affirm that judgment terminations respondent others rights there's no further questions i'm common experience i think it's a god given right to grow up with your problem area or problem family these are really decent people care and the response had difficulties i his mother died he care for