in place court so lars good morning more in this case the issues presented are twofold whether the court was against the manifest way the evidence for the court to find that see presenting the evidence that you do not succeed all issues of the service plans seem everything that he was what his mind and effort towards but he did have those efforts and he did have those he attended every visitation throughout the nine month period  on either side of that while he brought food and candy clothing toys to the visitations he completed not one but two parenting classes now while the and that the parenting classes geared towards the ordinary of the regular child clearly not for special needs child a child which had autism sensory issues things of that such and that any sort of training and education with regards to those special needs were only obtained through the foster parent during those throughout most of the period of this nine month period to our monthly visitations or the a five bedroom home with a full basement he did obtain a house the key issue and i'm sure the court will ask questions about this for this as well as for the recent progress is the issue of his drug treatment his drug is a lifelong user was at the time a lifelong user of marijuana cannabis he was addicted to he was under orders to undergo treatment with regards to that he attempted to two dirty what are called dirty is that he didn't tend to do that because what he did intent he put out the effort to these counseling with the drug the drug counselor the problem is whether that counseling was enough take by mr hudson to receive treatment until his death in october of two thousand and ten mr hudson was offered inpatient house and the time that he had to take care of his family he had to take care of a family member that was severely ill i after that it was never offered again it was never presented to him again for in patient counseling which would have or could have helped him kick this wall term addiction is still the same but the guy that he always was he got the honor one can speak to that but i think also what is the record i think the record shows he was not able to enter into the treatment during that i think that having undergone two parenting classes yes he still had this drug issue but having taken two parenting classes he would have been available in the near future he was   was held last november it obviously took into consideration the facts and evidence presented last june at the fitness hearing and the best interests of the child i think that the i believe the phrase routine or something to that effect mr hudson's testimony was to the opposite i believe he presented photos on a cellphone to show to the trial court and the court review those  also testifying that brought the toys and treats and blooms but your honor so far as the best interest into the force last question trial counsel's article and i think in some respects that's right mr hudson was making great progress and maintained his building relationship despite the fact that his visitation was being last lesson in less the issue of those correcting those conditions and of the best interests well yes this trial the special needs that something should be considered but it's not the term in fact we're those three children i believe they're older and i'm not positive at this regarding how one bonds with or attaches to the jail without his made special needs shelters that's a pretty broad spectrum this new caseworker came on and she felt very differently and for whatever reasons now i think that's a good question up the the issue of the what's necessary to bond program that would address both her mental health and hereto health and drug usage you said i do a problem so it's been the same placement for three years especially placement the child is making progress they're willing to adopt now there's a part between the child and the peer in the foster on the other hand the  make yours i'll keep this brief but i do want to hit on a couple things or raise when opposing counsel's argument that i think are actually quite interesting in this case and that is the  hearing last june of interest at that point and yes this is also answering the court's question of what the evidence is whether they live together on the issue of stable housing as i've already described also shows they attended visitations together whether or not the record shows that at least ninety nine month period they did not live together i don't believe there's any testimony at the best interest hearing as to whether they resided with one another there is testimony that they attended taishan together but the nature and level of their person involved with one another is a little bit vague but i think i think he looking at both of the this court rules i believe the state wishes to file another petition it is within the state's power to do so i'm not sure obviously the stance they are with miss frazer at this point offhand