court this morning counsel i'm here representing jed long pres who is seeking to have his five children returned to him and to be turned to him the right to raise those five rights we believe that the manifest with the evidence is discussed in our grief dictates that the decisions find him to be unfit and that it would be in the best interests of the children he clearly testified and admitted that he began the whole process with his children were initially taken from him in the wrong way he felt he admitted it was difficult to get along with that he did not cooperate as perhaps he should have but there were reasons for that in october of two thousand and fourteen pursuant to a request by the department children family services report as well as the department that both mr long pres and his wife because of the war intellectual level would have a difficult time understanding and completing the tasks that were going to be assigned to them if they were going to have their children be turned to them from the outset it's our position and as i've argued that the indicated that she felt that mr long pres was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his service to the united states in the united states army and it combat in iraq he testified to that i believe that we're in a record there's no reason to go through that this point in time but that's generally affected him the psychologist initially felt that he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder again i felt that that was ignored if you look at the the requirements of each of the of the service plans that preceded the findings of turning his rights nowhere disability benefits even after that was done and even after he had buys the department that he was seeking counseling through the veterans of business ration to address the issues that affected his personality and the way he dealt with people because of his finding of the find you know post traumatic stress disorder the department still found that he was  satisfactory with respect to obtaining counseling and treatment of the department at no time and to cross examination their representative admitted to me attempted to subpoena the records so those records were provided by the department could have done the same thing as i've argued i believe that demonstrates that from the outset mr la pres and myself believe that the department had made the decision that he was not an appropriate parent we were not going to allow him to have his five children back we are going to allow him to nurture and to raise his children at the outset they initiated tenants in the service plans number one well number one parenting classes both he and his wife completed parenting classes twice i've addressed the issue of counseling he readily admitted when he testified that he did not initially seek counseling because he didn't understand the symptoms because he felt that other veterans i think testify that other veterans perhaps deserve the benefits more than he but he ultimately obtained the counseling and he still was never found to be satisfactory even though he was going through the counseling he was required did not initially to submit to toxicology reports  it was never part of the service plans until he raised that issue with the caseworker and said i think that you should have the foster father to my four daughters tested because i believe that he is surprised he's using drugs they did not require that despite the fact that he was a felon a convicted felon the foster father rather they then began to ask and demand that to toxicology requests with the problem that the problem with requiring him to do it was the question well first there was no evidence of any of any substance abuse no evidence of it whatsoever no department and its surrogates placed in the service plans requirements that they submit to domestic violence count assessments of counseling they ultimately went through those but the issue is the only reason they put those in this because they suspected there was never any proof of it no one ever came forward and testified that there was any domestic violence between jed lom president and his wife or there was never any evidence that was submitted that mr long pres physically abused any of his children even objected to those two because as he says the toxicology reports are a bit testy that he felt those were for criminals and he did not feel that he should have to submit to those when there was no evidence of the same regarding his so while while very for what it's been decided you want to do it therefore ok i think the dead goes that's easy to say but we're nori that at the time they were demanding and requesting that he do this he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder does add those all him to never walk well again  l explain it if you're suffering from post traumatic stress disorder where this is the result of physical abuse or any other type of abuse or service in the military does not mean they're sure going to be able to  needs and what we have to do for them then let's move on then to the best interest for some in the best interest fortune again the the standard despite proponents revenue evidence for the however all i heard during the at the proceedings below from the c f s and from the trial court judge himself well we have to assure stability we have to ensure security for these for chill for the five children i submitted none of that based upon the court's ruling was supplied first of all let's look at the four dollars oh your supply security closure for these four children when they live one block from their mother and father when they see their mother and father every day and as the forced a mother testify to and as my client testify to as soon as they see them they run to their father call him daddy they say they love him and they want to go into his home this estoppel this desktop once the corner disorder on october sixteenth two thousand and sixteen it does not because you can't tell those four daughters you can't tell oh well turn it off that's not your father anymore because i'm sitting here behind a bench and i say he's not your father therefore you don't love him anymore therefore you don't want to see him anymore therefore when you go to family functions because a pause a foster mother is the sister of the mothers of the four daughters you don't need to go around them you don't need to express any love at all because i've said it's in your best interest that you not talk to your father or love  of sets of foster parents who would not just the mothers in each case fuz me testified that the children love the father and mother they call them daddy called her mommy and that they were sure that they still love their their parents they both testified that in particular his sister angela allen testified that the children go with him they gravitate to them so i submit to the court that is not of the best interests of the children another issue if we're looking for stability for these children if we're looking for stability for them and security what do we look to to support the children the state or the parents present result of his treatment for post traumatic stress disorder he's able to help as his wife in a better position to help his wife he testified to and it was not contradicted the busy come expected income this year was going to be somewhere around i think it may have been forty six thousand dollars between his employment full time employment and is v a benefits he expected his wife to make somewhere between ten and seventeen thousand dollars a year  testified that their life has changed that his life is in order that they're able to support their children he talked about the fact that when he gets his children back he's going to buy purchase a band so they can transport the children the and her husband does part time jobs part time jobs so as admitted by the caseworker under cross examination by cross examine she said the state's going to wind up supporting the children is that in the children's best interest does that teach them how they're supposed to go forward and try to earn an income of their own and attain a job it does not i submit that's not in the children's best interest the visitation specialists testified all of them testified in this matter as to the interaction of the la presse parents with all five of their children during the entirety of this case children appropriately that there were no issues whatsoever but despite that the case worker a case worker and i can't think of her name right now if scapes me testifies that they really did one satisfactory as to visitations in every single service plan that was put forth in this matter how can that happen i asked her did she read the notes she did but despite that she ignores the visitation specialists testimony and what was actually in those notes i submitted to the court that that demonstrates that good luck present his wife are able to parent their children are able to nurture their children and love their children i also submit to the court i know are that it was rather long but we submitted this response exhibit number one video compilation of all of the visitations of these two people was normal activity between a parent and a child children didn't shy away from him they didn't attempt to run away from him there was no crime if you approach them only laughter all of those things demonstrate those five children in my client and his wife it was still a family unit where there was love going back and forth but my quiet and my estimation i thought but the come done came to understand once he pursued started receiving treatment and started to take his medication what was it as he said he begins to be able to interact with people take one part of the community and understand what he needed to do and if you look at the if the testimony of the caseworkers that visited the home one of the things that was they were very critical of the that had to do with the house in the beginning it was he says and they say whether he says not organized but in march and april of two thousand and fifteen two visits to the home the home was found to be acceptable to the department but despite that despite that being put in notice he still bound to be unacceptable unacceptable and that just demonstrates that the department no did or his wife did they were going to recommend that the the parental rights of these two people be terminated and i believe that the mony that was put forth ignored if you look at his if you look at his jail report he didn't talk about the video evidence he didn't talk about the fact that the children see their father and mother every day that they love them that they called he didn't do that all he did was he goes out and he says that the killed are doing fine in the home of angela allen as well as assumes that's what he did and  i submit to the court that he ignored much of the evidence that i've argued to the court today i believe if you take all of that into consideration that number one that the unfitness finding should be reversed of as well as the best interest was an unfit parent i did not stipulate that neither did my client we stipulated that the court could make its decision based upon not just the reports that were put in and the testimony the direct testimony the witnesses but the cross examination that i conducted as well as mr smith that's what we stipulated to that did not abrogate the trial court's responsibility to still weigh the evidence in a fair and impartial manner itself but even if this court agrees that there was clearly convincing evidence that my client was unfit the best interest portion of the best interest evidence that was submitted to the court to the state at least seems to be that he's saying the trial court should not have accepted stipulated facts which the facts to which he stipulated the trial court had to accept well mr lump arose objected at every stage determination of parental guilt and make that argument here the agreement was to not have any testimony contrary testimony and they didn't have any argument against a finding of unfitness and the trial court even later characterized this as having been an agreed order so it seems like from the news from the trial court perspective and with the record disclosed that this is somehow the parents at after hearing extensive testimony running up the white flag and saying essentially saying to the court let's move on to  period for the children one of the reasons why this one removed was because of lack of medical care and failure to thrive for the two infants and lack of medical care i think when there was a rash for example that wasn't treated for one of the miners and the other two should not be accepted well he circulated this should be accepted by the trial court when making a finding as to his fitness and keeps the client service plans were rated this unsuccessful so it cannot be said that that that the children were close to being returned to him in the near future which is the standard for reasonable progress and also because reasonable progress is an objective standard his issues with respect to saying that for example they feel detain is a record think it him appropriate constitute an excuse to steer you to make these more progress to returning children within the propre time required by statute also he says that he did change she started he got a job use the able to have support for the children he was taking his med substance abuse but if this is suspected this result this behavior behavior which is now known to have occurred because of p t s d for example but it means back then though it was not known for sure whether there were substance abuse issues in the household and it is reasonable for the providers and also through the court through enforcing the requirements of cooperation with what the providers are asking them to do to confirm whether or not substance abuse is an issue and require the parents to do drug ops toxicology screen and just simply saying well that makes me seem like a criminal and i shouldn't have to do that is not an excuse that's not an appropriate excuse to win w it necessary to protect the children and make sure they're going to be in a safe home requiring something like that of the parent is reasonable when there are behavioral issues that make a least rise to the level of suspicion that there is drug use or possible drug use going on in the home relationships or other sorts of factors in play that could be helped by domestic violence counseling requiring them to undergo an assessment and assessment then could then resolve the recommendation for them to receive counseling so requiring an assessment for domestic violence or hiring assessment first substance abuse and then requiring them to file any recommended history services that are recommended as a result of participating those assessments that is reasonable for the trial court and for the caseworkers to require parents to undergo as part of the process of having their children returns to make sure that it's going to be a safe environment for that for the children i have a question regards to the procedure employed here you know looks like there were multiple i'm not sure why the right there were multiple days and it's not hearings and then ultimately stipulated back so i'm not sure how all of that played out but what could the court consider here it's a good question because it's not obvious from the actual wording of the stipulation that that was what was intended to consider exclusively this evidence that ignore everything else that it's already been heard over several different hearings i'm not sure that that's what the intent was or that's what the override anything that the two to the extent of the conflict conflict that has already previously been heard i'm so that seems to be more the case not that the trial court had to ignore everything else but to the extent that it may have been a conflict it seemed like the attempt was  interests children of widely varying ages the two older children who were interviewed by the court in camera and also are old enough to have some sort of and put in terms of what the trial court should consider their wishes of where they want to live they wanted to live with them with the their their foster parents and especially emily the oldest who was scared of the respondent father and did and hated things that happens attachments have been made particularly for the three younger children elizabeth taylor yeah the ones that were taken for example close to infancy they are of course much more significantly bonded with the responded pair with with the foster parents which is to be expected because responded parents are getting no more than supervised visits which are just simply occasional meetings with them they're not living with them full time and so the fact is that during this time that he is supposed to getting its act together these things are happening these children are many of them have special needs and they are thriving more a lot more in the foster homes where they're getting complete example the girls went to be an uncle and even though they knew that their foster parent says and don't call him even if they live close in proximity to the responding parents i think there was an allegation heard argument that they somehow wanted to go into the home of through financial circumstances were your response to believe his mention the fact that there's some sort of an option subsidy so he's thinking bats and some of the children are going to use sort of state has to be considered from the perspective of what's really fast for these children in other words who's paying for their support is that really sort of gets you where they're most loved or where they're feel most secure where their attachments are and that's so i were were watching during supervise there's this realizing that they would have to be placed there full time essentially and not supervised anymore and so with these unresolved issues but i think it's more about the fact that they're thriving in the foster homes that's where they especially the older children wanted to be that's where the younger children especially were most bonded because of their ages when they were removed that's mostly i think what the child has to look at his points with more than one of the visitation specialists talked about it being chaotic but also always the the the transcripts demonstrate the testimony demonstrated that they then explained that it was chaotic because you had five young children put into one place and that these five children were very active that was a chaotic part not to that that was the my client spoke with the mother they were very consistent in saying testifying that these two parents were able to deal with the children discipline them and control the the the environment this farce feeding entertainment  my recollection course of the record with demonstrators but otherwise but my recollection is that only one child was interviewed by the judge and that would have been emily contrary to what councils are it was that she hated her father there was a period of time when both the mother and father testified that in the spring of last year they separated over the pressure of what was going on regarding the children out of the home they separated for approximately a month the angela allen told the daughter eldest daughter what was happening the daughter at that point in time made the remarks regarding her father  dissipated and things were back to normal as far as the attachment issue i don't know that any of the children were ever evaluated  by a counsellor or psychologist as to whether or not they were totally attached to the foster parents and didn't want anything to do with their parents did want to live with them perhaps that would have been a good idea fighting arguments of counsel the physical facts are as i've argued to the court the children particularly the four eldest daughters wanted to go in the home she ignores council north the testimony of the parents that when the children tried to go into the home that angela allen made them come back they love their parents they've demonstrated that they want to be with them i feel also that the evidence is there ted supports the proposition that both parents are able to parent these children and if they do so with the help of the department and the state of illinois as they're helping each of these foster parents  the i recognize that we've spent most of the time here on the issue of fitness particularly with the a stipulation but i want to remind the court from my perspective as being there is sitting there listening to court that the stipulation was not stipulating that my client was unfit or that the mother was unfit we stipulated as to the evidence the matters that the court could take into consideration in making its decision as to fitness would you then argue that judge having heard all that you can see why the evidence is not adequate we did ultimately that's why we're here today that doesn't that's all the evidence you have to consider but it's not enough and here's why this is that then vitiate the trial court's responsibility in an important issue such as this first question was did you make that argument well you know i didn't make that ar either way you wouldn't be asking well no i didn't think it would search the record count so maybe i missed it but that's what i thought we were hearing so you didn't make that argument but your claim is that even in the absence of an argument the trial judge has to evaluate the evidence as if he did fall answer the question threw out one of the other justices brought this up to ralph these proceeds of these proceedings below we object to every step of the way if you read the record you'll see the number of objections that i raise particularly did you guys are grounds the evidence was insufficient my position is that we stipulated because that was what we wanted the court to make its decision on it didn't do away with the court's responsibility to weigh the evidence in a fair and impartial manner now my client and i decided early on that we didn't feel that was going to happen even said my question all right times so