bar by the tail we got to that point with a change of goal help and everybody agreed and i think the court fully agreed that my client didn't hear everything humanly possible to comply case he did everything which was possible within the writings of the department of corrections to to comply with it i have soon for a number of quotations transfer you have to make the transfer request if nothing else just got to be i suggest the burden of proof of the state to say that he did do it because if we put ourselves hypothetically in the be is it possible but it could make a difference if we knew what he was incarcerated for under the same facts we're talking about here because you kind of need a blanket statement  it is very much a condition that will impede the progress towards reunification and if you look at the fish choice section and where we're talking about the family is the most important part of that section is pr towards reunification with the child that's the goal the service plan is intended to help with this too with that an obviously a get in the canteens he wasn't even offered services i believe that a caseworker although to the extent that you would say that they didn't do anything i disagree with that i think what they did is commit felonies and actually for the course information and i believe in the semen of facts that was brought up at the very beginning of the case it said that his convictions in two thousand and thirteen were for an aggravated battery about a person over sixty and a day aggravated distributor of fire so i believe that is what led to his car situation but in the end he had a formal child that was had no sa parents with a parent one parent's incarcerated the other parents and so that is what he did to create a situation as he became incarcerated by committing felonies in terms of the services that were available to to be out at the time that was alleged at the end of the period when he could have been calling the caseworker to set me up for parenting i need to get my joey to move closer to my child instead of four hours know he was a parent because when the shelter care hearing first took place he was immediately named as the father although another man had actually put his name on the birth certificate which is why we had to actually terminate or  the testimony at the at the hearing was actually that he did not show proof of any involvement in the services there so in that sense he actually did not mean this this family matter is there is a service plan and the services are available and fails to comply then failure to make progress includes not completing those services well it doesn't exclude other ways of not making progress and in my progress but the other factor is not that not that it comes first but sometimes it really is under these steps are to respect and difficult to overcome the unfit is part of the other example i gave was i realize you don't do that first you have to find them on set but once you get to that best interest at heart you also do have other options besides determination so it's not that one fitness is per state termination you fit under a statutory section then those people do have discretion to choose which one to charge or lavish and if it's fish it doesn't matter there's another section that might also f because we were at the time that he was almost out i believe he could have contacted his caseworker and said hey i'm out on november i would like to be signed up for parenting classes at the first available  change she actually had a father who was not present in court so certainly the judge is going to look at that because a lot more things come into the school change then you can consider in whether he made progress in the nine month period when maybe not that there was a question of whether or not he had provided evidence of having done so thing and apologise for getting maybe rid us of this mixed up of the fish but i believe there was