time a father expressed to the caseworker early on in the case that he was having problem with mail he moved from jacksonville to east moline during the process and and so that there was there was an early that's something you look at whether or not or dad sent letters or gas cards that type of thing did this disconnect between his communication with the caseworker did that impact his ability to do than in any way well i'm i'm stuck with the record in that for the track record and there's no evidence that that that those kind of actions took place and i know in judge starts order she concentrated on that relationship or lack of pleasure to work however when when the  the caseworker realized very very late that she was able to conduct the intake assessment over the phone not in person she found she thinks the only two  earlier could have solved that problem and one of the things that the attorney in the trial bore argued is you know we have to give this guy a fair chance to at least participate in the parenting classes he's scheduled to get out march twenty seventh at least at least give them the opportunity the delay was not his fault i understand this communication misunderstanding whether intake assessment for the integrated assessment has to take place in person didn't take place  a situation where one of the parents was you know somewhere in springfield or somewhere and gloomy didn't we couldn't track them down everybody knew every hour of the day exactly where this father was and just as it was the father responsibility to be in contact with the kids and the caseworker caseworkers would also have responsibility to contact the father of she testify that she did not do that and then when you come down the father was not involved in any of the there's a there's an inference this is an inference i think rather than direct evidence there is an inference based on his response to the d n a testing addressing that question so i know there's evidence addressing a span of time which is far as we know of it while there is absolutely no contact what i meant was there is no evidence suggesting he did what you are asking right i understand and doesn't that show or rather responsibilities if you want to maintain contact with the child if i think it could it could represent that but at the same time we offer services to any family to go to the system one of the things we're trying to do especially with american classes it's get them involved get them behaving in this father did not have the opportunity to do that and in this case through no fault of his own he wasn't missing he wasn't missing appointments with social worker or the parenting class for them i'm not saying that because it's not in the record but it's possible that the parenting classes that get assigned everybody make make all of them better so i don't i mean i don't have a response based on what happened in the trial court to that question but but that's why they have people and people repair all kinds of you know poor parenting skills in the parenting classes and this this person's this this father said at the outset i'm willing to cooperate with services and then there was literally a months long almost a year long span where they didn't do the integrated assessment at the integrated assessment only to suggest that services a drug assessment not drug counseling not showing any interest in the child or not asking about the child nothing i understand also is if this was just as something to do i understand judge i understand the question but but i think trial counsel suggested that that's why we needed to see how he does in these parenting classes see what he does on his release day i understand the record is absent of any details as to the father's approach to parenting issues i understand that but at the same time we recommend the services the system recommend services for a reason the parenting classes or are again these are that's the most common thing n told cooperate even to some people do it without being told because at their parent and they you know they need to do that with the child care i agree but i know that and i know that some people when when even if they're not involved in the have the monthly contact with him but the reality is where that is ok to c f s didn't do what they were supposed to do you get your child i mean we're looking at a child in the best interest of that child and we look at his complete lack of interest in this child and showing no indication of any intent to care for this child and you still i don't see why you have a reasons that they're bringing the case to the bar so those those people have to follow the directions of the of the department in this case we have somebody from the beginning the records show that said i'm willing to do it cooperate with the d susman there's just no reason it shouldn't have been done the beginning and i can't tell you what would happen what if letters would have been coming you know every week your cards i don't know what would have happened but this father wasn't given given that chance to at least participate in the counsel i understand by your question this way before counseling that he needed to take his place of sas i appreciate that but i think we have to look at what happened within the  so what i've asked for it but that once again that fails to focus on the seven or eight years before the children were brought to the attention of th not deal with someone who is been incarcerated for the entire life of a child when that ends up being eight or nine or ten years but but but maybe in some cases and in this case we assign the parenting classes because we have have they have parents who really don't know what those things are and that second way against them i understand the way you look at the case that you know you didn't find out how to handle this you didn't do anything but we give them the classes so that they can  h so that they at least have a chance to know what to do but typically we're giving those classes to a parent who's already somehow connected to the child other than by accident birth i understand i mean no services are provided to parents that exists he exists in a biological sense but this say that through no fault to dissolve he didn't develop a the fault is have sent to prison but i think that's because that's what consequence is it is you may disrupt family life that exists or be unable to create a family life but i think that's why it's horrible i mean it's horrible i agree but but i don't know if it's a chicken or the egg then why assign the parenting class you assign the parenting classes so that we can improve their parenting i get i get the feeling  between the parties about the nature of the law or the facts or has to consider the question today is whether or not the trial court error and whether its determination both that the individual this case was an unfit parent as well as that it was in the best interest of a minor to terminate parental rights was against a man of its way to manifest with the evidence and in this particular case the single area where there is a point of disagreement between the parties is the extent to which the family service plan should have or regard to whether or not the parent has made meaningful and reasonable progress towards correction of the circumstances that led to removal of the child that is a different area in an area that is heavily focused on the family service plan because the intention the purpose of the family service plan is to correct issues and to return the family to an acceptable level of responsibility on behalf of the parents that is not what occurred here in this particular instance because of mr gordon's lack of involvement in the child's life and complete lack of contact with the position supported both by the statutory language as well as supreme court precedent that whether or not mr gordon had any which is a patient the family service plan has no bearing on whether or not he showed a reasonable degree of concern for the interests of the of the minor but that had to do with unfortunately the actions of the biological mother however that does not change the fact that the record is not devoid of evidence here actually has affirmative evidence the mr gordon never at any point in this child's life made an attempt to find out anything about her never reached out to the biological mother i once ruled had occurred never reached out to the caseworker or to the foster parents to say how is she doing is there anything i can do to help humans even given his limited circumstances is never center of birth they are a letter anything that would show that he had established an interest in becoming a parent and that was an unfortunate choice but it is a choice that has consequences and one of the consequences is that there is no evidence to support a finding that he showed a reasonable degree of interest in that in his in in the minor in this particular instance as a result is the state's position that whether or not the family service plan was the best family service plan or whether or not the caseworker in this particular case did everything or went above and beyond what was required is an inquiry they simply are not relevant to the subsection b and it certainly is an instance where the the social worker may very well have realized given the lack of mr gordon said contact with the with the minor that assigning him additional tasks such as family classes etc would not have corrected some of the issues that he faced in terms of his stated desire to become a parent the final point that i would make is that again this is not prospective we're not looking at what might happen in the future looking at what actually has happened so the fact that mr horn may want to dish out time in additional opportunities to show concern unfortunately is just not in i agree that section b is a completely separate section that the section thirty nine serves but in all the cases i've been to are the nine the service fund is set up so that parents have the ability to make progress towards a return even even if the child has never been and to say that in this case because of circumstances between the caseworker and the the father that essentially the father does not get his nine months because that's what that's what that's what the rule is he does not get his nine month period because he did not get his integrated assessment until the i believe eight months and was not even told what the services w because the caseworker said we were getting ready to change the goal anyway at the next from the c review hearing he did not get a fair shake at those nine months and people come in the cases worst cases and there us with parenting