court was presented with a situation where the state was present with witnesses and the defendant was not the evidence that was presented to the trial court indicated that the children had been removed from the mother at a time when the father was in jail that the father made no efforts to complete the provisions of the service plan which was inhibited by the fact of his incarceration after hearing the evidence the court found father and fit moved immediately to the unfitness portion found that se and heard evidence that the father had not had any contact with the children for several months that had meant made no effort to contact the children and had made little or no effort to satisfy  fatherly duties as far as nurturing these children but frankly i have confessed to the panel that if the court if the panel finds that it was proper to proceed in the father's absence of the father's attorney made a motion to continue it pale finds that i would miss that the state satisfied their burden of  reasonable progress towards return the children to result the problem that led to their protective custody being issued by the state the father was not really a player in that game and i think that the courtship taken then were sirree ssion than it did the other issues are whether or not the father well let me put it in print but they're not the trial court was justified in denying the father's motion to continue such that it could be considered by this panel as an abuse of discretion the back every time he appeared but he was in custody when when the terminations harry was how he was no longer in custody it's my understanding and that would have been the first time he had to get himself to court without help right without help from the sheriff or the  record is there anything in the records i read the record i cannot find anything that said why he didn't show up he never filed no you didn't know it's so he never gave the court any recent this to reconsider its motion to continue to be considered no that's for it was never provided on and i also searched the record for the same thing and i agree with you it state and to a certain extent can never be late he can never miss a hearing because he's accompanied by the personnel that have him in person but it seems as though the trial court may be but where i grew up there was an expression the road goes up in the room book group goes down see what i'm saying is you consider the jail as far as him being in attendance twelve out of twelve times but you don't children i guess communication was possible but it wasn't undertaken and there was no way for him to accomplish the goals of the service although the caseworker in here there was constant again little in the jail she wasn't specific as far as whether or not the counselling was would have satisfied the goals of the service another point that was brought up to be in the in the trial counsel in this case however i have been trial counsel in this type of case for the last twenty years the first appearances in my experience indicate result in the court happen if he didn't show maybe he didn't know what the thirteenth hearing was a buck whether it was not sure whether or not whether or not steve heering unfitness and then would be followed by termination he had no knowledge that it would be attended by the end network continues so it seems to me going to use of discretion in a palpable injustice for the court not to grant the continuance request by the father in the thirteenth hearing the only one he didn't appear for which was seems to me that this is importance and the effect it had on this father was not appreciated by the trial court in denying the motion to continue was not good not considered by the trial court as far as not conducting a first appearance on the motion for terminations and the court hearing one side of evidence in and of itself i responding could not do services in prison the testimony was services were available but he did absolutely nothing he did not protected caseworkers he did not try to inquire about and as far as those the first fact that no contact no services no nothing shows there's no progress and no effort and the cases state that the person person in jail cannot be used in has not shown any kind of prejudice will lack of admissions we have here in paris who have been through several review hearings and received several case plans case files telling him you need to do services you need to just briefly my opponent to use words can't wait for the parents to finally show up in court that's right these are supposed to be an expedited basis in the court of the state shouldn't have to wait for her hair to finally show or in the case cited by my opponent in his brief j kelly m f jail the process two years m f process took a year and a half and at the time of the hearing the mother was not going to be released from prison for another five years now as always cases are factually similar when cited for authority but i believe what the state's trying to do is put a square p terminations and of course nine month period was a single nine month period as first thirty allegation of this they were concentrating only on march thirty one twelve thirty one two thousand  whatever for the measuring stick or whether or not reasonable progress so this isn't a case where there have been several nine month periods and several a long period of time for a father to perform i believe this case is factually dissimilar from the cases cited by my opponent and warrants consideration