¹ In cases involving minor children, it is the policy of this Court to redact the parties’ names so as to protect their identities.

² The Children have different fathers, whose respective parental rights were terminated by the trial court in its October 8, 2019 order. Neither father is a party to this appeal. Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) has a lengthy history with Mother and her family. In 2013, when T.L.H. was approximately three years old, his paternal grandmother, Kimberly G. (“Grandmother G,”), obtained legal custody of him. There is indication in the record that the child lived with Grandmother G. prior to her obtaining legal custody; however, it is not clear how long T.L.H. resided with Grandmother G. prior to that time. Nonetheless, in December 2016, Grandmother G. tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, THC, and MDMA. Accordingly, DCS removed the child from Grandmother G.’s home. On January 9, 2017, DCS filed a petition to transfer custody of T.L.H. from Grandmother G. to T.L.H’s maternal grandmother, Kimberly R. (“Grandmother R.”). The younger child, S.L.K.R., had been living with Grandmother R. since he was two months old. The court ordered that Grandmother G. have only supervised visitation with T.L.H. until she completed a list of court-ordered tasks to address drug and alcohol concerns. During the time the Children were living with the grandmothers, Mother was in and out of jail. Trial Exhibit 2 is a collection of Mother’s arrest and incarceration records dating from February 7, 2016 through the date of the hearing. On March 31, 2017, DCS received a referral alleging lack of supervision and environmental neglect by Grandmother R. The referral specifically alleged that Grandmother R. was permitting T.L.H. to have unsupervised visits with Grandmother G. DCS’s investigation revealed that Grandmother R. had, in fact, permitted Grandmother G. to have unsupervised visits, thus exposing T.L.H. to possible drug use. Accordingly, on April 5, 2017, DCS placed both Children into protective custody; at the time the Children were placed in DCS’s custody, Mother could not be located. At trial, Mother explained that, as of April 2017, “I was [] in and out of jail. didn't really have a place to live so I was just kind of wherever. Dealing with a drug addiction. You know, trying to figure things out.” On or about April 25, 2017, the Children’s Family Service Worker Samantha Walker (“FSW Walker”) made contact and met with Mother to review a permanency plan and a corresponding parents’ statement of responsibilities. The initial permanency plan required Mother to complete the following steps before the Children could be returned to her: (1) attend parenting classes and submit a certificate of completion; (2) attend child and family team meetings and court hearings; (3) maintain contact with the family service worker and notify her of any change in circumstance within 24 hours; (4) maintain residential stability for a minimum of six months; (5) provide DCS with proof of legal and verifiable income or proof of disability; (6) provide DCS with a copy of a rental or lease agreement in her own name; (7) provide DCS with a copy of a valid driver's license, proof of car insurance, and registration or a transportation plan; (8) pay child support as ordered; (9) submit to random drug screens; (10) if applicable, ensure that the Children are supervised by a sober appropriate adult; (11) not associate with persons who use or are known to use or abuse illegal substances or prescription

³ Mother’s third child was, in fact, removed from her custody and placed with a family member. This child is not the subject of the instant appeal. - 10 - to perform his or her parental duties.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 866. “The actions that our courts have commonly found to constitute wanton disregard reflect a ‘me first’ attitude involving the intentional performance of illegal or unreasonable acts and indifference to the consequences of the actions for the child.” In re Anthony R., No. M2014-01753-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 3611244, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2015). Here, the record is replete with evidence of Mother’s poor decision making. Since 2016, she has been in and out of jail for charges ranging from joyriding and simple possession to aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. From the record, Mother has failed entirely to place the Children’s needs before her own. Despite her numerous incarcerations, Mother failed to take the steps necessary to address her drug use and stop her criminal activities. Trial Exhibit 2 is a collection of Mother’s arrest and incarceration records. It shows that, at times, Mother was not out of jail for a whole day before she committed another crime, which resulted in more incarceration. Moreover, despite the fact that she was released from jail and transferred to a halfway house in June 2019 — and thus provided with an opportunity to rehabilitate herself — Mother was arrested again in September 2019 on aggravated assault and probation violation charges. It does not escape this Court’s notice that the September 2019 arrest took place after the trial but during the period when proof was left open in an effort to allow Mother time to submit additional evidence regarding her release from jail and her residency at a halfway house. Mother’s long list of crimes and incarcerations clearly demonstrates a wanton disregard for the welfare of the Children in that Mother’s incarcerations have “severely compromise[d] [her] ability to perform . . . her parental duties.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 866. From the totality of the circumstances, there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent by wanton disregard for the Children’s welfare. B. Failure to Substantially Comply with the Requirement of the Permanency Plan The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated on the ground of failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1- 113(g)(2) provides that a parent’s rights may be terminated when “[t]here has been substantial noncompliance by the parent . . . with the statement of responsibilities in a permanency plan.” “[T]he permanency plans are not simply a series of hoops for the biological parent to jump through in order to have custody of the children returned.” In re C.S., Jr., et al., No. M2005-02499-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 2644371, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2006). Rather, the requirements of the permanency plan are intended to address the - 11 - problems that led to removal; they are meant to place the parent in a position to provide the children with a safe, stable home and consistent appropriate care. This requires the parent to put in real effort to complete the requirements of the plan in a meaningful way in order to place herself in a position to take responsibility for the children. Id. As discussed by this Court in In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004): Terminating parental rights based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) requires more proof than that a parent has not complied with every jot and tittle of the permanency plan. To succeed under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g)(2), the Department must demonstrate first that the requirements of the permanency plan are reasonable and related to remedying the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the parent’s custody in the first place, In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 547 (Tenn. 2002); In re L.J.C., 124 S.W.3d 609, 621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), and second that the parent’s noncompliance is substantial in light of the degree of noncompliance and the importance of the particular requirement that has not been met. In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 548-49; In re Z.J.S., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3- JV, 2003 WL 21266854, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2003). Trivial, minor, or technical deviations from a permanency plan’s requirements will not be deemed to amount to substantial noncompliance. In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 548. Id. at 656-57. The Tennessee Supreme Court has explained that [s]ubstantial noncompliance is not defined in the termination statute. The statute is clear, however, that noncompliance is not enough to justify termination of parental rights; the noncompliance must be substantial. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “substantial” as “[o]f real worth and importance.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1428 (6th ed. 1990). In the context of the requirements of a permanency plan, the real worth and importance of noncompliance should be measured by both the degree of noncompliance and the weight assigned to that requirement. In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 548 (Tenn. 2002). As discussed above, Mother’s requirements under the permanency plans were to: (1) attend parenting classes and submit a certificate of completion; (2) attend child and family team meetings and court hearings; (3) maintain contact with the family service worker and notify her of any change in circumstance within 24 hours; (4) maintain residential stability for a minimum of six months; (5) provide DCS with proof of legal and verifiable income or proof of disability; (6) provide DCS with a copy of a rental or - 12 - lease agreement in her own name; (7) provide DCS with a copy of a valid driver’s license, proof of car insurance, and registration or a transportation plan; (8) pay child support as ordered; (9) submit to random drug screens; (10) if applicable, ensure that the Children are supervised by a sober appropriate adult; (11) not associate with persons who use or are known to use or abuse illegal substances or prescription medications; (12) attend and complete an alcohol and drug assessment and follow all recommendations; and (13) sign all releases for DCS. Concerning Mother’s failure to substantially comply with the foregoing requirements, in its order terminating her parental rights, the trial court found that [Mother] testified that she had completed a 12 step program while she was incarcerated. However, prior to her incarceration, and during periods of other incarceration, the court finds that [Mother] failed to comply with any of the permanency plan requirements, including even minimal steps, such as maintaining contact with the Department. The court finds that [Mother] continued to use illegal drugs and to associate with drug users and/or individuals involved in illegal activities. The court finds that [Mother] has failed to maintain employment, either immediately prior to her incarceration, or really at any time during the last 6 years. While the court acknowledges that [Mother] did complete an alcohol and drug assessment prior to incarceration, the court finds that [she] failed to follow through with the recommendations of the alcohol and drug assessment. The court finds that [Mother’s] drug abuse is a major concern and barrier to reunification, along with her failure to maintain housing or income stability due to her being repeatedly incarcerated due to her criminal activities. These were statements on the permanency plan that were concerns then, and remain concerns now. The record supports the trial court’s findings. Although Mother testified that she attended a twelve-step program while incarcerated, there is no proof that she has been able to maintain sobriety for any length of time. Because Mother’s drug use and accompanying criminal activity are of paramount concern to the safety and welfare of these Children, the lack of proof that Mother has been able to remain sober and arrest free is sufficient proof of her failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan, which are reasonable and directly related to addressing the reasons for the Children’s removal from Mother’s custody. In addition to her failure to address the most pressing issues, Mother also failed to address other requirements such as employment and housing. Her inability to satisfy these requirements is due to her continued drug use and engagement in criminal activity. Mother has failed to avail herself of the resources available to her through DCS and other entities, and she has failed to make any significant changes to her lifestyle despite numerous incarcerations. For these reasons, there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s - 13 - termination of Mother’s parental rights on the ground of failure to substantially comply with the requirements of the permanency plan. C. Failure to Manifest an Ability and Willingness to Assume Custody or Financial Responsibility Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14) provides a ground for termination of a parent’s parental rights when he or she has failed to manifest, by act or omission, an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child, and placing the child in the person’s legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). This ground for termination of parental rights was added to the statute effective July 1, 2016. See 2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts, c. 919, § 20. Concerning the substantive requirements to meet the burden of proof, in In re Maya R., No. E2017-01634-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 1629930, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018), we explained that, first, the petitioner must prove that the parent has failed to manifest “an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Second, the petitioner must prove that placing the child in the parent’s custody “would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child.” Id. Concerning the first prong, i.e., whether the parent has failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody and financial responsibility of the Child, there has been some disagreement in this Court regarding the measure of proof required to satisfy this burden. In In re Ayden S., No. M2017-01185-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 2447044, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018), a panel of this Court held: As to the first prong [of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1- 113(g)(14)], the statute requires the party seeking termination to prove a negative: that the parent failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child. Here, despite finding that the parents “ha[d not] failed to manifest a willingness to assume custody” and that the “parents want these children,” the juvenile court concluded DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence this ground against both parents. The court based its conclusion on the finding that the parents “d[id not] have the ability” to personally assume custody of the children. - 14 - In general, “statutory phrases separated by the word ‘and’ are usually to be interpreted in the conjunctive.” Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785, 792 (Tenn. 2000). In the context of a “negative proof” connected by the word “and,” a party “must prove that . . . all” of the listed items were not met. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 120 (2012). At oral argument, DCS urged that we interpret the word “and” in the disjunctive so that it only had to prove an inability or unwillingness of the parents to assume custody of the children. Our supreme court has “recognized that the word ‘and’ can also be construed in the disjunctive where such a construction is necessary to further the intent of the legislature.” Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d at 792. But because “we generally presume that the General Assembly purposefully chooses the words used in statutory language,” id.; cf. Scalia & Garner, supra, at 116 (“Under the conjunctive/disjunctive canon, and combines items while or creates alternatives.”), and the presumption has not been rebutted, we decline to adopt DCS’s interpretation here. We conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(14) could not serve as a basis for terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The proof at trial negated a required element of the statutory ground. The juvenile court found: “In this case, these parents definitely want to assume legal and physical custody of the children and are willing to assume financial responsibility for the children.” However, in the subsequent case of In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA-R3- PT, 2018 WL 3058280 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018), a panel of this Court parsed the conjunctive (as opposed to disjunctive) language used in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14) and compared the statutory language to other similar statutes before holding that [u]pon consideration of the statutory language and the relevant legal authority, we hold that the first prong of Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1- 113(g)(14) requires that the petitioner prove that a parent has failed to meet the requirement of manifesting both a willingness and an ability to assume legal and physical custody of the child or has failed to meet the requirement of manifesting both a willingness and an ability to assume financial responsibility of the child. Id. at *14. This dispute continues in cases where a parent manifests a willingness to assume custody and financial responsibility but is simply unable to do so; however, this is not such a case. In cases, such as the one at bar, where the parent has manifested - 15 - neither a willingness nor an ability to assume custody and responsibility, this Court has upheld termination of the parent’s parental rights on this ground. See, e.g., In re J’Khari F., No. M2018-00708-COA-R3-PT, 2019 WL 411538, at *15 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2019) (noting both In re Ayden S. and In re Amynn K. but ultimately concluding that DCS presented sufficient evidence that “Mother was not able or willing to assume physical or legal custody of or financial responsibility for the Child”); In re Colton B., No. M2018-01053-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 5415921, at *9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 22, 2019) (noting the split in authority but holding that it was unnecessary to choose one approach where the parent had manifested neither an ability nor a willingness to parent the child). Turning to the second prong of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1- 113(g)(14), i.e., whether placing the child in the parent’s custody “would pose a risk of substantial harm to the physical or psychological welfare of the child,” this Court has explained: The courts have not undertaken to define the circumstances that pose a risk of substantial harm to a child. These circumstances are not amenable to precise definition because of the variability of human conduct. However, the use of the modifier “substantial” indicates two things. First, it connotes a real hazard or danger that is not minor, trivial, or insignificant. Second, it indicates that the harm must be more than a theoretical possibility. While the harm need not be inevitable, it must be sufficiently probable to prompt a reasonable person to believe that the harm will occur more likely than not. In re Virgil W., No. E2018-00091-COA-R3-PT, 2018 WL 4931470, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2018) (quoting Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.3d 726, 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). Here, the trial court found that Mother failed to manifest, by act or omission, an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the Children and that placing the Children in her legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to them, to-wit: The court finds that the Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the [Mother] failed to assume custody or financial responsibility of both children, pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 36-1-113(g)(14). The court finds that [Mother] failed to meet the requirements of manifesting both a willingness and an ability to assume legal and physical custody of both children, and that she has failed to manifest both a willingness and an ability to assume financial responsibility for either child. (See In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA-R3-PT, page 21 (Tenn. App., 2018) []). The court finds that placing either of the children in [Mother’s] legal and/or physical custody would pose a risk of substantial - 16 - harm to the physical and the psychological and emotional welfare of both children. (See Id.) While the court acknowledges [Mother’s] testimony that she is willing to attempt to regain custody of the children, the court is very mindful of the fact that [Mother] has never followed through with taking care of the younger child for most of the entirety of the younger child’s life, nor has she followed through with taking care of or seeing to the needs of her older child for more than half of that child’s life. Furthermore, the court finds that [Mother] has no proof or knowledge of whether or not she will remain in custody and/or in a halfway house for one year or more than one year. Furthermore, the court finds that, given [Mother’s] ongoing incarceration from 2016 through the present date, and given her ongoing illegal drug use and other illegal activities when she has not been incarcerated, the court finds that it cannot and will not expose these children to the dangers of [Mother’s] lifestyle that exists now and prior to her incarceration. The court finds that [Mother] has simply failed to demonstrate an ability or a willingness to assume custody of either of these children. The court further finds that [Mother] has failed to complete a drug treatment program, although she was given every opportunity to do so by the Department. The court finds that [Mother’s] lifestyle and ongoing incarceration has severely impacted her ability to maintain residential and financial stability. Furthermore, the court finds that [Mother] has not had stable housing for more than 6 years, nor has she maintained consistent employment for more than 6 years. The court finds that [Mother’s] life has been a life of instability, illegal activity, and illegal drug use, for more than 6 years prior to the entry of this order. The court finds that placing either of these children in her care is (a) impossible at this point, but (b) the court finds that placing either child in her custody would pose a very serious and substantial risk of physical, psychological and emotional harm to the children. The court finds, given [Mother’s] prior consistent lifestyle, that the court can be no more assured of the children's welfare in her custody today than it was prior to 2016. The court finds [Mother’s] lifestyle has been consistently inconsistent as it relates to jobs, housing, drug use, illegal activity, and any form of stability. For many of the reasons discussed above, there is clear and convincing evidence that Mother has failed to manifest either a willingness or ability to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the Children and that placing the Children in her legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to them. Between February 2016 and May 2019, Mother has been arrested and incarcerated more than sixteen times. T.L.H., who was eight years old when DCS filed its petition, has not lived with Mother, or really seen her, since he was three years old. S.L.K.R., who was four at the time of the hearing on DCS’s petition, has not lived with Mother since 2015, - 17 - when he was two months old. Mother testified that she left the children with their grandmothers because she “didn't have anywhere to live” and was not “stable at that point in time. . .” because she “was trying to figure out how to quit using, and . . . work a permanency plan.” Yet, during the entire time her Children were living with others, Mother continued to use drugs and to incur multiple arrests. In this regard, Mother’s actions speak louder than her testimony. At trial, Mother stated that, when she was released to a halfway house she would visit with the Children “as much as possible, as much as DCS will allow because they’ll help with transportation and stuff like that.” However, when she was, in fact, released from jail to the halfway house, she made no efforts to see the Children. Rather, she engaged in criminal activity that resulted in further incarceration. Accordingly, we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that Mother has failed to manifest either a willingness or ability to assume custody of these Children. Furthermore, as to the second prong of this ground, given the fact that Mother has failed to make any significant changes to her lifestyle, it is clear that placing the Children in her legal and physical custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to them. Mother is unable to support the Children because she is unable to maintain stable employment. At the time of the hearing, she did not have stable housing and had shown no ability to procure housing. Even after the hearing, Mother engaged in criminal activity that resulted in further incarceration. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights on this ground. VI. Best Interests When at least one ground for termination of parental rights has been established, the petitioner must then prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest. White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187, 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). As the Tennessee Supreme Court recently explained: Facts considered in the best interest analysis must be proven by “a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d at 555 (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861). “After making the underlying factual findings, the trial court should then consider the combined weight of those facts to determine whether they amount to clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest[s].” Id. When considering these statutory factors, courts must remember that “[t]he child’s best interests [are] viewed from the child’s, rather than the parent’s, perspective.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 878. Indeed, “[a] focus on the perspective of the child is the common theme” evident in all of the statutory factors. Id. “[W]hen the best interests of the child and those of the adults are in conflict, such conflict shall always be - 18 - resolved to favor the rights and the best interests of the child. . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-101(d)(2017). In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662, 681-82 (Tenn. 2017). The Tennessee Legislature has codified certain factors that courts should consider in ascertaining the best interest of the child in a termination of parental rights case. As is relevant to this appeal, these factors include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Whether the parent or guardian has made such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions as to make it safe and in the child’s best interest to be in the home of the parent or guardian; (2) Whether the parent or guardian has made such an adjustment after reasonable efforts by available social services agencies for such duration of time that lasting adjustment does not reasonably appear possible; (3) Whether the parent or guardian has maintained regular visitation or other contact with the child; (4) Whether a meaningful relationship has otherwise been established between the parent or guardian and the child; *** (6) Whether the parent or guardian, or other person residing with the parent or guardian, has shown brutality, physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse, or neglect toward the child, or another child or adult in the family or household; (7) Whether the physical environment of the parent’s or guardian’s home is healthy and safe, whether there is criminal activity in the home, or whether there is such use of alcohol, controlled substances or controlled substance analogues as may render the parent or guardian consistently unable to care for the child in a safe and stable manner; (8) Whether the parent’s or guardian’s mental and/or emotional status would be detrimental to the child or prevent the parent or guardian from effectively providing safe and stable care and supervision for the child; or (9) Whether the parent or guardian has paid child support . . . . Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i). This Court has noted that “this list [of factors] is not exhaustive, and the statute does not require a trial court to find the existence of each enumerated factor before it may conclude that terminating a parent’s rights is in the best interest of a child.” In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 667 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 21, 2005). Depending on the circumstances of an individual case, the consideration of a single factor or other facts outside the enumerated, statutory factors may dictate the outcome of the best interest analysis. In re Audrey S., - 19 - 182 S.W.3d at 877. As explained by this Court: Ascertaining a child’s best interests does not call for a rote examination of each of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i)’s nine factors and then a determination of whether the sum of the factors tips in favor of or against the parent. The relevancy and weight to be given each factor depends on the unique facts of each case. Thus, depending upon the circumstances of a particular child and a particular parent, the consideration of one factor may very well dictate the outcome of the analysis. White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d at 194. In its order terminating her parental rights, the trial court considered the foregoing statutory factors in finding: The court finds that the best interest factors shown in numbers 1-4 and 6-9 . . . all weigh heavily in favor of termination with regard to [Mother]. The court finds that [she] has [not] made any change or adjustment, despite the reasonable efforts (including case management and visitation) by the Department, to [her] circumstances. The court finds that [Mother] has [not] maintained any contact with [the] children. The court finds that [Mother] last saw the children in October of 2017. The court finds that [Mother] has little to no bond with the younger child, and the court finds has very little bond if any with the older child. The court finds that [Mother] has not completed a drug treatment program, nor has she demonstrated any measure of any real stability that gives this court any evidence that her physical environment would be safe for these children to return to her now or anytime in the near future. The court finds that [Mother] is currently unable to assume custody, and will continue to be unable to assume custody, for the immediate future, and for a period of time that she cannot determine, nor does the court have any way of determining, based upon the proof before the court. The court finds that [Mother] has presented no evidence to the court that she will have suitable, stable housing at any time, in the immediate future, suitable for these children. For the reasons discussed in detail above, the record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interests. Among other things, Mother has failed to support the Children and has failed to provide suitable housing. She continues to use illegal drugs and continues to engage in criminal activity. In short, despite numerous opportunities and reasonable efforts on the part of DCS, Mother has failed to make such an adjustment of circumstance, conduct, or conditions so as to make it safe and in the Children’s best interests to be in her custody at any early date. - 20 - Meanwhile, the evidence shows that the Children have thrived in the care of their foster family. They consider the foster parents to be their parents and consider the foster parents’ biological son to be their brother. The Children’s needs are more than met in their current environment. To remove the Children from the only stable home they have known would likely cause them great distress. VII. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial court terminating Appellant’s parental rights to the two minor Children. The case is remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary and are consistent with this opinion. Costs of the appeal are assessed to the Appellant, Erika R. Because Erika R. is proceeding in forma pauperis in this appeal, execution for costs may issue if necessary. _________________________________ KENNY ARMSTRONG, JUDGE - 21 -