this case i believe it was the natural father was acknowledged by the trial court even to be a man of such children there was evidence regarding fact and in the required mental health assists assessment before he was subsequently incarcerated the natural father was incarcerated for much of the time of the nine month period in fact t accidently eight months of the nine month period during that incarceration services were unavailable to him the required services under the service plan and were not offered in the facility and which she was h requested and attempted to enroll in classes while he was in the pittsfield work camp additionally during his incarceration while he was unable to take the classes that were recommended by the service  for termination when there is a service plan and the recommended services were available to the parent and no progress or effort was made by the parent to work for unification in this situation the natural father did not have services available to him the the several tongue fails because the services were simply not available the prison in which he was incarcerated  not offer the classes for wired although he did attempt to enroll in that he was eventually moved to a prison that did offer the classes but because he was in the infirmary he was not able to participate in because the natural mother was incarcerated and was actually able to avail herself of services while she was incarcerated in that case after she was released from prison she began failing to comply in many ways this is complete opposite of mr chestnut as during his incarceration he attempted to undergo and comply with the service plan but he was unable to immediately upon his release however he began availing himself of those services as soon as the services were made available to him he began while j l states there is no exception to the nine month service period i think it needs to be considered with the opinion in re seat and which requires consideration of all of the conditions that led to the removal as well as those that came to light after the removal and i think in this case mr chestnuts and cursory qualifies as one of those conditions which be considered when measuring his free simple progress and reasonable effort he was housed in a location that did not offer services and the condition of his incarceration led to the on availability of services again during the second nine month period he was incarcerated the majority of that period and services were remained unavailable to him he was released in november and during the last third of the nine month period he began availing himself of services in fact he contacted his case worker immediately upon his release and by the date of trial he had completed several of his domestic violence classes and was scheduled for parenting classes which had been unavailable prior to the first hearing at trial the caseworker indicated she was unable to schedule the classes prior to the january hearing this is another case where the service plan existed but the services were simply not made available to the father the supreme court states that when measuring reasonable progress and reasonable efforts the dynamics of the circumstances must be considered and i think in this case that is especially important as soon as he was able to have services available to him mr chestnut made every effort to complete those services and to comply fully with the service plan he was in contact with the caseworker he continued moving toward his goal which was you reunification even after the goal was changed he even went beyond the service plan and beyond what was recommended by the service for him in voluntarily submitting to a mental health evaluation i think these actions all show add together to demonstrate that he did make a significant effort and progress to correct the conditions that led to her move all of the children as soon as he was able to avail himself of those services and i think part of the retirement for reasonable progress and reasonable effort is that the services were  when the services were not available he still made an effort to cooperate with the caseworker he's remained in contact with her he updated her as to his address he attempted to find out and bringing us involved with his children as he could despite his incarceration the city and court stressed the opinion the legislation would not want to allow an unjust out that illinois supreme court stupid reasonable progress encompasses not only compliance with the service plans and the court's directives in light of the conditions which gave rise to removal and in light of other conditions which later become known and that would prevent the court from returning custody in this case that is exactly what the incarceration was this is not at all like the jail case and should be considered differently with regard to the finding of depravity the state presented certified copies of felony convictions the last of which was within a specified timeframe to establish the statutory presumption of defray vittie the statutory presumption is a robot of all presumption and once it arises the natural father the natural parent then has the opportunity to  in ray j set forth the analysis for proving depravity and under that analysis one evidence is presented opposing the presumption the burden then ships back to the state to prove  convincing evidence as the presumption ceases to exist at that point and that since though there was no presumption beyond the presentation of the certified copies of the national father's felony convictions the state offered no evidence regarding his depravity which does not automatically support a finding of depravity according to the first district in j the effect of ever bought of all presumption is to establish what will would be a yes or however i think that merely accepting the certified copies is not sufficient i believe the state should have been required to present evidence additionally i believe the requirement is that depravity be shown by clear and convincing evidence at the time the petition to terminate was filed the last evidence that they have regarding believe if by no other evidence it can be shown by the compliance with the service plan that he was both willing and able to comply with moral standards regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this situation the natural father was represented by three different attorneys in front of three different while the state argues that this would not have been prejudicial because those hearings much i would argue that they did me quite a bit and would have established prejudice each of those hearings he was unable to demonstrate his efforts at each of those points he was unwilling to make further efforts to  interests would have been better represented to the court and each of the review hearings he was denied access to led to the ultimate filing of the petition to terminate rights despite his best efforts despite his free simple progress they hearing  which he was not represented in any capacity also led to this i believe it's impossible to say he was not substantially prejudiced by the effect of assistance he had th reasonable progress we still have efforts which i submit and challenge and we still have the privacy i disagree with counsel statement that any kind of evidence three plus the predator in this case we had attempt or early in the case to help the mother escape the jersey section where the children as did his sister the same woman who was involved in this phony document early in the case in the same mormon council says it is as a witness showing that he's no longer to pray so he got her which i submit her testimony of is not worth much we have a and then read it the best interest hearing counsel for the most kind of let's get it over let's do it so now they come over here and say they're ready for it to terminate us for the united this hearing and the best interest here they don't challenge reasonable to come up and say well you received her effective assistance of counsel because back in march of two thousand and thirteen he wanted to come to a pharmacy review hearing and he was in prison and nobody brought him in and this through the whole case and that daring the goal was set return home and the next hearing was in august of thirteen and again the judge said the goal was return home so these two hearings are nothing changed so must be a reasonable not any not a probable not not a yes a reasonable probability that you would have a different result where is it you know it's not here if it was there believe that my argument demonstrates both progress and efforts that were made and i'm page four of my reply brief it is a trust for us while additionally even if there is  bounced several judges through several attorneys and i believe this is a case where a system that is imperfect did not work resulting