The Cherokee County Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of the mother and father of K. M. and S. M. The mother appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support termination.1 Because there was clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights, we affirm. On appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s decision, 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 So viewed, the evidence shows that the Department of Family and Children Services “DFCS” became involved with the family in March 2000 upon receiving a report that the mother was not properly caring for S. M., who was an infant. The mother tested positive for cocaine during her pregnancy with S. M., and DFCS had previously received complaints of domestic violence between the unmarried parents. In April 2000, the parents had a domestic dispute, and DFCS required the mother to sign a safety plan providing that she would not take the children to the father’s residence. The mother violated the safety plan, and DFCS took K. M. and S. M. into custody in May 2000. At that time, K. M. was nearly 7 years old and S. M. was 6 months old. In its order, the juvenile court found that the mother admitted to cocaine use during her pregnancy, was unemployed, had no stable residence, had failed to properly feed S. M., had been involved in “numerous instances of domestic violence” with the children’s father, and had violated the DFCS safety plan. It also held that the “deplorable” condition of the family home was “a health hazard to the children.”
In December 2001, the juvenile court found that the mother was making progress toward completion of her case plan, and the children were returned to her custody.3 They were removed from the mother’s custody again in February 2002 after she twice tested positive for methamphetamine use. In July 2002, the DFCS permanency plan for the children was changed from reunification with the mother to non-reunification, based on: the mother’s failure to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment or treatment since February 2002; her positive drug test in May 2002; her admission to using methamphetamine; her move to another state without prior notice to DFCS; her failure to maintain stable housing or employment; and her “sporadic” contact with DFCS and the children.
