wasn't that an allegation of the judge or discussion the judge had with the respondent because he did not contact a caseworker give an address right there there is to their to make recent progress during the return home with a minor during time period august first two thousand and thirteen to may first of two thousand and fourteen the state called only one witness the caseworker misprint elicited testimony about was visitation however many cases including the death the case have you have discussed that there are other ways a parent is showing their interest concern responsibilities such as pain child or it's purchasing gifts and other things like writing letters sending cards which in this case capability of a kindergarten or and the fact the psychological said he was functionally illiterate whether it was or any evidence in the record regarding karr and other interests the state did not ask any questions other than about his visitation so there was no evidence in the record one way or he did not in in the first part know he didn't know there was there was vigorous cross examination and it should be noted something that the state has continually failed to mention in this case is that the both parents through initially found fit and the child remained in the mother's custody until october thirtieth of two thousand and thirteen despite the fact the case to be considered such as the parent's difficulty in obtaining transportation we know he was homeless and lived many miles from peoria where the visits were going to be held a parent's cafferty we know he had no in actions and statements of others that hindered or discourage visitation we don't know whether or not the mother exists for those three years did she let him see the child did she prevent him in some way from seeing the child  certainly the bus pass issue which the bus passes the caseworker testified she made giving him to it in february of two thousand and twelve that could have been an action that  hindered his ability to visit and the last check or is whether the parents failure was motivated by a need to take care of other factors that were going on in their life or whether it was a true indifference you agreed that there was there i this record information that the judge actually took out of this into consideration his mental health issues and some of the things that he didn't know you know you're  understand that he has a mental deficiency but i believe there is a lack of interest in his failure to show up i believe it was about three or four sentences acknowledged that case it's saying that despite the fact it was an objective standard the reasonable list of progress had to be evaluated in light of the circumstances that i don't believe that they didn't tend to graft it's important though isn't it that i mean there's a difference between willfulness being required and an objective standard i mean you'd agree with that i into how the mental impairment affected reasonable progress and in him that's not a requirement is it well right in that piece it's stated that the parents again it's something the state has not mentioned yet either that the parents have a constitutional right to hear it their children so to deprive them of that right there needs to be a concern for the taker to have the judicial process and that is the fairness of our courts and i think that that's using a gay and o s it's not saying that there has to be a i think it was did it and i think the word was misplaced i don't think there is a willfulness involved but she to say objective standard doesn't mean there we should not and i think it's important to note that this case is not just about j p there are many here and similarly situated in the fact that they have been like for disability that they haven't a mental illness that they're homeless j b just happen to have off three of these things but this decision that you make sure they on this case is going to affect all of these fact that the court ordered psychological evaluation done in two thousand and eleven told the trial court told the case worker you have to modify this man's services you need to do further assessment on his adapt functioning skills and his and dependent living skills before you can really know whether he can appear in his trial the question is we don't have enough information to know whether g b could hear in his trial the psychological evaluation said he could not hear independently the nic i bring up a good point that co parenting was never even explored whether there was a friend or relative that could live with and there's no nothing that says that a parent has to be able to perhaps because the child was with the mother i don't know if that was the lack of urgency here but the king the state waited four years after this case was open to file their terminations titian the state  well all things should you know the best interests of the child she is it's paramount but where was the best interest of the child when you're waiting four years for five terminations titian mr o'neil with regard to that i'm just looking at waiting four years might be to the benefit of the responded in many ways because it was him that maybe not willfully but did not cooperate with caseworkers were his dress was writing to the judge you didn't let the caseworker know where you live you would not you know each could maintain contact with you regarding services if you were unwilling to give reformation and that's a decision that he made the judges so i'm just saying is that sometimes maybe the four years might have been in his you know interest to wait as long as they could to give him a chance well i could see where that could have been the case that the judge is actually in the state as well misstating the case workers actual testimony it again there were no service plans filed in this case and in the state it incorrectly states that that was due to there's nothing in the record indicate that these service plans could not we're not prepared they were filed so the appellate court determined that there is no evidence that they were prepared at all but there is nothing in the record to suggest they could could be done this that actually the he did cooperate in the integrated assessment something that's done early on in the first few months of the case as is the first service plan required i asked that that  be taken traditional notice of the termination proceeding and that that was denied but but it is you know there was full acknowledgment that that document existed that it cooperated with that claim the interview that he actually did the caseworker testified that she had an address a mailing address for him that she had a message from number for him in the state mentions in their one of their recent there she even took him the child to pekin one time to see the respondent father so the fact that she couldn't get a hold of him and he wouldn't say he you know she he she had one of the she had a mailing address it is true that he was not he did not have stable housing was couchsurfing staying with someone and he said that he did not have permission to give her his address of where he was staying but i think that's a red herring because they were never looking at placing the child there usually when they want the actual address that's because they want to do a own visit to see whether this would be a suitable residence for a child the child was luke the first three years with the mother they were never looking at the father as a place and certainly after the psychological it was as though the father this really wasn't even a factor anymore and the state is also wrong to say that this case worker went out of her way and tried and in river in arranged all the services she ration no services that's what the appellate court said she me she gave him some names of some places he might go but even the mental health community mental health she says she told him to go back there all the evidence at trial or testimony was she knew he was back there but she and she had a signed release from him to get that information but when i asked her she said i didn't get it are you saying the judge was incorrect when he stated on the record that between august one thousand and thirteen and may fourteenth or twenty fourteen that he did not go to the integrated assessment to determine to work together to churn what accommodations are modifications needed to be made secondly we have the psychological evaluation with which was done in two thousand and eleven very early in the case that was very clear that all curriculum she did not know what color what topics it covered and she did not know whether it was appropriate for someone with an intellectual disability but the psychological indicated that those kinds of services had to be broken down  given examples that there had to be modifications of every single service and that further study needs to be done in adaptive functioning test and living skills test to know exactly what modifications so had she utilise that person and gone over the psychological the recommendations from the psychological i think we would have known exactly what modifications but we did of parents with intellectual disabilities will have their parental rights terminated that staggering and it's not  is no other questions i thank you for your time thank you