i raised in my brief three issues on the order i asked for the oral argument primarily just to deal with one of the three arguments because i just wanted to make sure i was clear here in the in the in the brief are i wanted to press with you close bond between the child and the biological mother this is a child who has autism and the caseworker testified that he really only saw the child have a close physical again responsive reaction to two people this time the foster parent who was also the grandmother and to the biological mother case worker also testified that there would be some harm to the child if the relationship between the mother and the child was cut off and that he did not know if the foster parent grandma would allow visitation between the mother and the and the child if the rights clearly that the state provided the single witness the guardian have item issued a number of concerns but in light of the testimony of the caseworker guarding that item sack i can't i can't agree that this is in the best interests of the child i can agree that cutting this autistic child off from his mother is is is something i can agree to if we knew if there if there could be a guardianship if there was some way i could be reassure autistic the child has essentially bonds with two people you're removing that one of them from from that child's life so if we didn't terminate her parental rights appoint  to achieve by what you're suggesting would be the course of action well i think because you're looking at the uniqueness of this particular family the uniqueness of this particular family what we have it's not just a child a mother who gra i think the record is clear she has some drug issues has participated in visitation not only the visitation offered by the the service plan but visitation that was offered outside of the service plan by the  to contact with this child and the only witness we had say the relationship between this child and the mother was in court and this isn't this isn't just another child this is a child so we're going from office is there eviden believe there's evidence of u k that the caseworkers testimony that the child would be harmed in the best interests here i don't i don't believe that there is other evidence and there certainly wasn't in the evidence presented on the day of the unfitness and best interests here that that was if you look at the four five one three factors the testimony by the witness and the jails concerns as well as the mother's attorney identified for factors of the best interest factors that that the decision to terminate with fact the development of the child's identity the child's background and ties of his family the child sense of attachments and the uniqueness of every family and child and i think the last one is the one you need to look at closely because this is a child and so my request is faced on everything in my brief but child have the ability to continue a relationship with the adoption place that the jail must  resort and the truck or cook made the finding that this was the best thing to the child that returned home with not possible which was eminently proven by the evidence had the unfitness hearing where the mom the only basically the only thing she did was go to visitation she didn't deal with the drugs her drug use she continued to use drugs she didn't do the domestic violence classes she didn't do the individual counseling she did not keep in contact with the caseworkers on a regular basis she knew point for a month or so i believe that if i recall right and all she got section eight housing there's longer the time where she had no house so we're the court was faced with a individual that doesn't love to ever be able to return this child to this individual so the choice is do we terminate the perl rights now yeah i would definitely let them on stalock or in the child's life you know that the mom the mom is never going to see this child again then the court can weigh that in as far as which adoptive parents are going to give it but the information we have regarding autism in this record is that the child has we don't know here odds are probably where autism is on the spectrum you have from the rain i mean there's a that's why specter of we don't know or less spectrum this child falls we also don't know what truly the further rise would need to this particular autistic child because there was absolutely  rebuttal during this case there were three service plans and during the three service plans the mom cooperated with the grain of crops did not successfully complete the right process she cooperated with them she successfully completed parenting classes say there were two people that this child identified with and openly outwardly showed affection for his grandmother and his mother and when he was asked then is there going to be harm if he never sees his mom again the witness just let me look into this issue and then you may you know judge you may have my blessing but let me look at it this issue but there was no evidence that that set or that that would suggest that there was just the one witness  him that so that the drug issue here and there was no suggestion that this mental illness was going to be helped soon but the mother had a tight bond with the kids and that was enough for the court to say wasn't that that the message that the mom had a close bond with the kids she participated in visitation and the children benefited from it and i think this is why this case is like an arraignment thank you all right thank you i phone case will be