The mother of J. K. and H. K. appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.1 Because there was clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision to terminate the mother’s rights, we affirm. On appeal from a termination of parental rights, we defer to the juvenile court’s findings of facts, and we affirm “if the record demonstrates that any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s right to custody has been lost.”2 Thus viewed, the evidence shows that on February 12, 2004, J. K. who was four years old at the time was placed in the custody of his maternal grandmother after the juvenile court determined that the mother was unable to care for him. That same month, the juvenile court placed one-year-old H. K. with her paternal grandmother. Thereafter, on November 17, 2004, the juvenile court found the children deprived and ordered that both children should be placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother, noting that the mother had made no progress on her case plan for approximately nine months, had threatened to flee with the children, was unstable, and could not provide for the children.
By order dated July 20, 2006, nunc pro tunc to March 23, 2005, the juvenile court adjudicated the children delinquent and placed them in the custody of the Department of Family and Children Services “DFCS”, finding that they were without “proper parental care or control, subsistence, or education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for their physical, mental, or emotional health or morals.”3 The juvenile court also ordered compliance with the terms of a case plan prepared to reunify the mother with the children. Under the plan, the mother was required to complete a psychological evaluation; attend and complete parenting classes; use non-harmful methods of discipline; obtain and maintain a source of income and support for the children, as well as stable, clean, and safe housing; obtain childcare services or otherwise assure proper supervision of children; cooperate with DFCS personnel; and submit to random drug screenings. In May 2005, the juvenile court entered an order finding that the mother “had made no progress on her reunification plan for a lengthy period of time” and changing the permanency plan to reunification and non-reunification, noting that DFCS’s new plan for the children was adoption.4
