WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge.

Britany McElroy and Brandon Fritter appeal from the circuit court's termination of their parental rights to H.F., born December 21, 2011, and Z.F., born November 23, 2010. Britany McElroy's sole point on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error when it abused its discretion in terminating her parental rights despite her efforts to comply with the court's orders.1 Brandon Fritter's sole point on appeal is that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance. We affirm.

On January 20, 2012, a report was accepted from a hospital where H.F. had been admitted and diagnosed as failure to thrive with significant malnutrition.2 A home visit from Appellee Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) revealed that despite there being little to no preparation for H.F. to come home, there were no immediate health or safety hazards noted. However, appellants were living with Jeffrey Reddick, who is listed on the central maltreatment registry for true findings of substance misuse, environmental neglect, and sexual contact.3 An emergency hold was taken on H.F. on January 24, 2012. An emergency hold was taken on Z.F., who had been out of state, when she returned to the state on January 26, 2012. An ex parte order for emergency custody was entered on January 26, 2012. The court found probable cause in an order to that effect entered February 6, 2012.4

On March 15, 2012, the court entered an adjudication and disposition order finding the children dependent-neglected and at risk as a result of neglect and parental unfitness. The goal of the case was reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption. The children were to remain in DHS's custody.

Following the March 14, 2012 adjudication hearing, the appellants were allowed supervised visitation for one hour twice per week. Beginning April 15, 2012, the appellants were allowed four hours of unsupervised visitation twice per week. Beginning May 15, 2012, a trial home placement began. The court's August 9, 2012 review order revealed that during the trial placement, appellants had been smoking methamphetamines with the children present in the home. This led to the children being removed on May 29, 2012.

In the August 9, 2012 review order, the court further noted McElroy's failure to test negative on drug tests, which prevented her from having visitation with the children; lack of employment; failure to attend Narcotics Anonymous; failure to attend counseling; failure to obtain a drug/alcohol assessment; failure to come in for weekly drug screens when requested; and admitted use of other people's prescription Xanax. The goal of the case remained reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption. The permanency planning hearing scheduled therein was also scheduled to be a show cause hearing for both parties regarding their use of methamphetamines during the trial placement.

A permanency planning hearing order was entered on January 11, 2013. Therein the court stated that appellants had continued illegal drug use and had not: (1) maintained stable housing or employment; (2) submitted to weekly drug screens; (3) completed counseling; (4) cooperated with DHS; or (5) demonstrated an ability to parent or protect the children. It noted that neither party was present at the hearing and that neither party had made progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes of the juveniles' removal from the home.5 The goal of the case was changed to adoption.

A petition for termination of parental rights was filed by DHS on January 22, 2013. DHS asserted that termination of appellants' parental rights was in the best interests of the children considering their likelihood of being adopted and the potential harm if the children were returned to the parties.6 Grounds given in support of the petition were that (1) the children had been adjudicated dependent-neglected on March 14, 2012, would have been out of the home for one year as of January 24, 2013, and the parties still had not remedied the conditions that necessitated removal, despite DHS's meaningful efforts;7 and (2) other factors arose subsequent to the original filing of the petition for dependency-neglect that made returning the children to the parties contrary to the children's welfare, and the parties had manifested incapacity or indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors which prevented the children's return to their custody.8

A hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights was initially set for March 15, 2013; however, it was reset after the court appointed counsel for Fritter.9 Instead, the court proceeded with the March 15, 2013 hearing as a review and show-cause hearing. In an order filed March 18, 2013, the court found both parties in contempt of court for noncompliance "by not passes [sic] weekly drug screens." Both parties were sentenced to twenty days in the Washington County jail.

An order terminating the appellants' parental rights was entered on April 5, 2013. The court found that the same was in the best interests of the children considering their likelihood of being adopted and the potential harm if the children were returned to the parties.10 As grounds supporting termination, the court cited the two grounds alleged by DHS in its petition, namely that (1) the children had been adjudicated by the court to be dependent-neglected and had continued to be out of the custody of the parent for twelve months and, despite a meaningful effort by the department to rehabilitate the parent and correct the conditions that caused removal, those conditions have not been remedied by the parent;11 and (2) other factors arose subsequent to the original filing of the petition for dependency-neglect which make returning the children to the parties contrary to the children's welfare, and the parties have manifested incapacity or indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors that prevent the children's return to their custody.12

This timely appeal followed.

In cases involving the termination of parental rights, there is a heavy burden placed on the party seeking to terminate the relationship.13 This is because termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy in derogation of the natural rights of the parents.14 Nevertheless, parental rights will not be enforced to the detriment or destruction of the health and well-being of the child.15 Thus, parental rights must give way to the best interest of the child when the natural parents seriously fail to provide reasonable care for their minor children.16

I. McElroy — Sufficiency

McElroy makes the argument that the trial court committed reversible error when it abused its discretion in terminating her parental rights despite her efforts to comply with the court's orders. While she essentially argues sufficiency, we note that the standard of review is not abuse of discretion. At least one statutory ground must exist, in addition to a finding that it is in the child's best interest to terminate parental rights; these must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.17 Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.18 The appellate inquiry is whether the trial court's finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous.19 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.20 In resolving the clearly erroneous question, we give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses.21 We have noted that in matters involving the welfare of young children, we will give great weight to the trial judge's personal observations.22 Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient to terminate parental rights.23 We review termination of parental rights cases de novo.24

Regarding the court's first ground, though she does not dispute that the children were out of the home for more than twelve months, McElroy argues that termination of her parental rights was not proper because she made progress toward complying with the court's orders. In support of her argument, McElroy cites her completion of psychological counseling, enrollment in college, move to a three-bedroom trailer, and being drug free. Progress toward or even completion of the case plan is no bar to termination of parental rights.25 It is well settled that evidence that a parent begins to make improvement as termination becomes more imminent will not outweigh other evidence demonstrating a failure to comply and remedy the situation that caused the children to be removed in the first place.26 Despite her children having been in DHS's care since January 2012, excepting the 14-day failed home placement, McElroy (1) did not begin counseling until August 9, 2012, completing it on October 18, 2012; (2) had enrolled in college only recently;27 (3) had been in the three-bedroom trailer approximately three months at most as their caseworker testified that McElroy had no stable home as recently as January 2013; and (4) had tested positive for THC as recently as February 2013.28

Additionally, a review of the record shows that though McElroy was making some progress initially — so much so that she was on track to have the children returned to her on July 15, 2012 — her cooperation became limited beginning with the May 2012 trial placement. In addition to the above-noted issues, the trial placement ended because McElroy was smoking methamphetamines in the children's presence. She then went on to test positive for THC in July 2012, December 2012, and February 2013, with the latter test being eleven days before the February 20, 2013 birth of a third child between her and Fritter.29 She tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines in October 2012. All of these tests occurred after she had already lost her children for the second time. Because she had not passed three consecutive weekly drug tests, McElroy had not visited with her children since December 2012. Regarding whether McElroy was currently using drugs, the court pointed out that she had not been submitting to drug screens as ordered, so there is no evidence to support her assertion that she was currently drug free. The evidence supports the court's finding that McElroy continued using illegal drugs.

McElroy was unemployed throughout the majority of the case; having been employed only twice, for short periods of time.30 Because of her lack of income, McElroy and the children had lived in several different places throughout the case, including with Reddick, who was on the central maltreatment registry for abusing her when she was a minor. Though she asserted that she had a stable home, it was not clear how long she would have it because her rent was being paid two months at a time by Arkansas Rehabilitation Services.31 Furthermore, she received food stamps and was dependent on Fritter to pay for all other necessities because of her lack of employment. The evidence supports the court's finding that she had not maintained stable employment or housing.

As this is only a sampling of actions taken by McElroy which were against court orders, there was more than enough evidence to show that in the more than twelve months since the children went into care, McElroy had failed to remedy the neglect and parental unfitness that caused the children's removal. Therefore, we find that the court's ruling terminating McElroy's rights was not clearly erroneous. Because we find that this ground was sufficient to support the termination of McElroy's rights, and only one ground is required, we do not address the court's second ground regarding issues that arose subsequent to the children's removal from McElroy's custody.

II. Fritter — Continuance

Fritter's sole argument on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance of the termination of parental rights hearing. He argues that his court-appointed attorney did not have sufficient time to prepare because he was appointed just two weeks prior to trial and that the trial court made it difficult for counsel to access Fritter at the time of his counsel's appointment by incarcerating Fritter for failing to comply with the case plan.

The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion amounting to a denial of justice.32 Additionally, the appellant must show prejudice from the denial of a motion for continuance.33

In support of his argument, Fritter cites Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-316(h)(4), which states:

The entirety of appellant's motion to continue was as follows:

In response to counsel's motion, the court specifically stated:

Fritter was readily available from March 15 through the morning of the termination hearing on April 3, 2012. We find no abuse of discretion. Even if we were to find that the court abused its discretion, and we do not, appellant's only argument regarding prejudice was that his incarceration "prejudiced Appellant in his abilities to work the case plan and utilized [sic] the reunification services DHS was ordered to provide him" and led to "the ultimate prejudice of all" — his rights being terminated. This argument was not made below. Furthermore, Fritter made no arguments below regarding alleged difficulties for his counsel to access him nor did he make any arguments for a determination from the court that he, as putative father, had established significant contacts with the children. A party cannot change his argument on appeal and is bound by the scope of his arguments made to the circuit court.34 Even in termination cases, we will not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal.35

Affirmed.

GLADWIN, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.