WILLIAMS, J.

This matter involves four young children who were placed in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") over 2 ½. The juvenile court entered a judgment changing the goal of the permanent case plan from reunification with the parents to adoption. The mother has appealed that ruling. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

A.F. ("the mother") is the 28-year-old mother of five children: A.F., born February 5, 2005; K.F., born May 21, 2007; P.F., born August 7, 2008; and twins, C.F. and C.F., born June 25, 2009. H.T. ("the father") is the biological father of the five children.

At some point, the mother went to Texas, where she remained for an extended period of time. On November 18, 2013, DCFS received a report of physical abuse against one of the twins. The report stated that the four-year-old boy had a large bruise on his buttocks and a bruise on his side "in the shape of a belt."

A DCFS investigation revealed that the mother had left the five children in the care of Marquerite Odom, an acquaintance who has been described as having "comprehension issues" and being "developmentally delayed."1 The DCFS investigator also learned that Odom and her brother, Robert Frost, had been physically abusing all of the children.2

The DCFS investigator interviewed Frost. He stated that he had been living in the home with Odom, his mother (Sandra Summerall) and the children for approximately two years. Frost admitted that he often "spanked" the children with a wooden back scratcher "to teach them some discipline," but he denied being aware that the wooden object had left bruises or marks on the children. Further, Frost admitted that he had spanked the children the previous night because they had "trashed the living room" and had disobeyed Odom when she told them to go to bed.

The investigator also interviewed Sandra Summerall, the mother of Odom and Frost. Summerall stated that Odom and Frost would often spank the children and that she was "sorry that the situation had got[ten] this far out of hand." Summerall admitted that she never attempted to protect the children from the abuse, stating that she would go into another room when the spankings would occur. Further, Summerall described Frost as having "major anger issues" and Odom as having "comprehension issues and developmental delays that cause[d] her to be short-tempered with the children." Summerall further admitted that she had spanked the children in the past, but stated that she had "never left any bruises." She stated, however, that Odom and Frost would "spank the kids really hard, and they ha[d] left marks and bruises on the kids."3

Additionally, the DCFS investigator interviewed Odom. She stated that the children had been left in her care for approximately four years and she had not received any assistance from the children's parents or grandparents. Odom also stated that the mother had last visited the children "around Easter" of 2013. She admitted that she was aware that Frost had spanked the children the previous day because she "heard them crying." According to Odom, she told Frost, "That's enough." However, he "cursed her out" and continued to hit the children.4

The DCFS investigation also revealed that Odom and her family lived in a two-bedroom home. Odom, Summerall and the five children shared one bedroom; Frost occupied the other bedroom.5 According to the DCFS investigator, the conditions of the home were deplorable: trash, feces and piles of clothing littered the floors throughout the house. Additionally, the investigator noted that "unclean dishes" were around the house, and the kitchen contained "spoiled food in the sink and on the counter tops and several pots on the stove with molded sour food on it."

Initially, the DCFS worker assigned to the case was unable to locate the mother. Subsequently, DCFS learned that the mother "might be in Texas" and that she had not visited the children since April 2013.

On November 19, 2013, an instanter order was entered and the children were placed in the temporary custody of DCFS. On November 21, 2013, a continued custody hearing was held. Although the parents of the children did not appear, the attorneys who had been appointed to represent the parents were present.6 The attorney appointed to represent the children was present and waived the children's presence. The DCFS case worker's affidavit was introduced into evidence. The juvenile court found that there were reasonable grounds to believe the children should remain in the custody of DCFS. The court also appointed a Court Appointed Special Advocate ("CASA") volunteer to advocate the interests of the children.

On December 19, 2013, the state filed a petition to declare the children in need of care, pursuant to LSA-Ch.C. art. 606. The state alleged as follows: the children had been physically abused by one of their caretakers; the children suffered from lack of shelter due to the actions of their caretaker; and, the children suffered from dependency because "the parents are missing and the caretakers have not been caring for the children properly."

A hearing was held on January 6, 2014. The parents of the children appeared in court with counsel and entered a general denial of the allegations. The juvenile court expressed the seriousness of the matter and advised the parents as follows:

Both parents stated that they understood the juvenile court's comments and instructions.

An adjudication hearing was held on February 6, 2014, during which the parents stipulated that the children were in need of care. The juvenile court found that there was a factual basis for the finding that the children were in need of care and signed a judgment to that effect.

Thereafter, a series of case review and permanency hearings were held. During the hearings, the evidence established that the parents were working on their case plans. The mother had obtained employment and had secured adequate housing for herself and the children. Additionally, she had completed a mental health assessment and a substance abuse assessment (all of the mother's drug screens were negative). Throughout the proceedings, the case plan provided, "The goal is reunification and the concurrent goal is adoption."

By March 2014, the four younger children had been placed in counseling due to varying degrees of mental and behavioral issues. Subsequently, K.F. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). He exhibited disruptive and sometimes violent behavior in the Children's Home and at school. P.F. was also diagnosed with ADHD. He displayed "violent temper tantrums" and aggressive behavior, and he was reported to be disobedient and defiant. He also experienced night terrors as a result of the physical abuse he had endured. P.F.'s disruptive behavior caused him to be removed from his first private-home foster care placement. The male twin, C.F., was diagnosed with ADHD. He and his twin sister, C.F., also had difficulty adjusting and were removed from their first private-home foster care placement due to behavioral issues.

During the early stages of these proceedings, the father was living and working in New Orleans. However, in April 2014, he returned to West Monroe to live with the mother of the children. Initially, he exhibited some success in working on his care plan. However, he began to test positive for illegal drugs and he was non-compliant with his mandatory substance abuse treatment.

At a permanency hearing held on August 18, 2014, the parties discussed a plan to gradually begin to transition the children back into the care of the mother. According to the plan, the oldest child, A.F., would be the first child to be placed into the mother's home. On November 21, 2014, A.F. was returned to the custody of the mother.7 The parents continued to live together in a trailer park in West Monroe. Both parents were employed and their combined income was sufficient to meet the needs of the family.

Subsequently, on November 28, 2014, the mother and the father had a physical altercation that was witnessed by A.F. When police officers arrived on the scene, the mother informed the officers that the father had hit her in the face with a closed fist, "slammed" her sister's head against a cabinet and pushed her niece to the ground. A.F. was not physically harmed during the altercation. The father was arrested and charged with domestic abuse battery, simple battery, cruelty to a juvenile, resisting an officer and possession of synthetic marijuana. A restraining order was entered against him, prohibiting him from visiting or contacting the mother. However, the two remained in contact and on December 15, 2014, the mother went to the district attorney's office and completed a "drop slip request." She stated that she desired to drop the charge of domestic abuse battery.8

In January 2015, the mother expressed her concerns to the DCFS case worker with regard to A.F. She stated that A.F. had been "very disrespectful" to her and had threatened to hit her with a hammer. The case worker referred A.F. and the mother to family counseling. The father also attended some of the sessions.

The record reveals that the visits between the mother and the children were uneventful when they were held at the DCFS office. However, the DCFS worker described the visits at the mother's home as "chaotic and unorganized." The worker reported that the children would not sit down, were "running in and out of the house," and the mother was unable to control them. Although the mother had been asked to provide "healthy snacks" for the children, the snacks provided contained high amounts of sugar, which seemed to contribute to the children's behavior. Further, the DCFS worker expressed her concern that the mother continued to be financially dependent on the father.

On February 19, 2015, the parties returned to court for a review hearing. During the hearing, DCFS expressed its willingness to continue to work with the parents. The court addressed the domestic abuse incident, and the mother stated that no incidents of domestic violence had occurred since the incident in November 2014.9 The father informed the court that he was living with his father but he continued to pay the rent at the mother's trailer so that A.F. and the mother would have a place to live. The permanent plan for all of the children remained "reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption."

In March 2015, the CASA volunteer prepared a CASA court report in which she expressed her observations that the mother "seems to have difficulty disciplining the children." The volunteer recommended that the children be maintained in their current placements and asked the court to reconsider the family visits. Thereafter, in June 2015, the CASA volunteer prepared another report in which she expressed her concern about the children's behavior and the mother's inability to maintain stability in her home. The volunteer stated, "[I]t is this CASA's belief that to bring the twins home in the constant bickering and arguing that goes on between [A.F.] and her mother would be detrimental to the progress they have made." The volunteer further stated that she did not believe the mother possessed "the skills required to handle these children at this time."

Another review hearing was held on June 18, 2015. The juvenile court noted that the father was back in the home. The court expressed its concern about these living arrangements, describing the relationship between the parents as "volatile." The court also noted the father's continued drug use. The court informed the mother that she had "some decisions to make" and warned her that her decision to continue to allow the father to live in the home could potentially impact her progress on her case plan.

By October 2015, the mother and the father no longer lived together. On October 16, 2015, the juvenile court approved unsupervised weekend overnight visits between the mother and three of the four younger children, P.F., C.F. and C.F. A DCFS case worker spoke to the children after the first weekend visit; the children did not report any problems with the visit. Following the October 23-25, 2015 visit, DCFS learned that the father had spent at least one night in the mother's home while the children were present. When the mother was initially questioned about the incident, she denied allowing the father to spend the night in her home. However, she later admitted that the father stayed in her home that weekend, but stated that she was unaware that he was not allowed to do so. The records revealed that the father continued to test positive for illegal drugs and had not completed his substance abuse program. Consequently, DCFS terminated the overnight visits in the mother's home and referred the mother to visit coaching for the second time. Nevertheless, DCFS maintained the goal of reunification of the children with the mother.

In November 2015, the CASA volunteer prepared another CASA court report, in which she expressed her concern about the mother's inability "to make decisions that are in the best interest of the children"; the mother's inability to maintain stability in the home; and, the mother's inability to manage the children and their behavior. The volunteer stated:

Dr. LaWanna Gunn-Williams, a licensed family therapist, began counseling the four younger children in March 2014. On October 16, 2015, Dr. Gunn-Williams prepared a letter for the juvenile court, detailing the progress the children had made. With regard to P.F., C.F. and C.F., she stated, "I have witnessed these three children progress from depressed, uncontrollable, angry, disobedient individuals to happy, loving, self-assured and caring children." Dr. Gunn-Williams also stated:

On November 6, 2015, Dr. Gunn-Williams prepared another letter to the court, in which she reported that after DCFS initiated the weekend visits with the mother, P.F. had begun "to display symptoms of anxiety, confusion, and depression" and he had begun "to act out in disobedience." With regard to K.F., Dr. Gunn-Williams stated, "[K.F.] has never shown a strong desire to be with his natural mother, and he only mentions her when asked about her." As to the twins, Dr. Gunn-Williams stated:

Further, Dr. Gunn-Williams opined that the children's current home environments were "the best permanent placements for them." She also recommended allowing occasional visitations with the siblings but limiting visitations with the mother, stating, "I am not sure that such visitations would render any positive benefit for these children."

By November 2015, the father had discontinued his compliance with the case plan: he stopped attending family visits; he tested positive for drugs on several occasions; he failed to complete substance abuse classes; and, he failed to complete the court-ordered batterers' intervention program.

On January 12, 2016, Tamara Thompson, the social worker who provided visit coaching services for the family, submitted a report. She noted that she had observed three family visits and had observed the affection the mother displayed toward all the children. However, Thompson stated:

On January 15, 2016, Dr. Gunn-Williams wrote a letter to Takia Boyette, the DCFS case worker assigned to the family, detailing the progress made by K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. Dr. Gunn-Williams stated that P.F. had informed her that his mother had stated to him that Dr. Gunn-Williams and the CASA volunteer were the reasons he was not allowed to live with his mother. P.F. also stated that his mother had instructed him to tell Dr. Gunn-Williams that he wanted to live with her (the mother). With regard to K.F., Dr. Gunn-Williams reported that he became disobedient and "extremely hyperactive" after each family visit and he was "uncharacteristically rude" during his last session with her. Further, she stated that the cottage parents had reported to her that K.F. had been angry and confused since his last family visit, but K.F. was unable to express the reason for being so. Additionally, Dr. Gunn-Williams stated:

On February 4, 2016, the DCFS prepared a report for the court in which the agency recommended that the goal for P.F., K.F., C.F. and C.F. be changed from reunification to adoption and that custody of A.F. be returned to the mother. By this time, P.F., K.F., C.F. and C.F. had been in the custody of DCFS for over two years.

On February 12, 2016, the CASA volunteer prepared another report in which she expressed concerns about the mother's ability to parent the children. She also expressed her concern about the mother's "hostility" stemming from the volunteer's recommendation to change the goal to adoption with regard to the four younger children. Again, the CASA volunteer recommended maintaining the children in the current placements and changing the goal from reunification to adoption.

On February 18, 2016, the juvenile court held a permanency hearing.10 Boyette testified that the mother had completed each aspect of the case plan and had "cooperated with whatever we've asked her to do." She stated that DCFS changed the goal from reunification to adoption because "we can't recommend placing the other kids in the home, based off [the mother's] visit coaching." More specifically, Boyette testified:

Further, Boyette testified with regard to the DCFS's decision to terminate the weekend "transition" visits with P.F., C.F. and C.F. She stated that the agency was concerned about the father's presence in the home during the weekend visit because the father had tested positive "for meth[amphetamine]" and he had not completed the mandated substance abuse classes. Boyette testified that it was in the children's best interest to change the goal from reunification to adoption because the children had been in DCFS custody for over two years and the agency was "looking for the children to have some form of permanency at this point."

On cross-examination, Boyette conceded that the mother had "complied with everything the Agency asked her to do." She also conceded that K.F. had behavioral issues, despite not being in the mother's custody. However, Boyette expressed her belief that the mother was not "doing everything she can to discipline him correctly." She stated, "We have never seen her actually attempt to discipline [K.F.]." She described an incident during which K.F. slapped one of his siblings during a visit and the mother failed to step in to discipline him. Rather, the mother "started laughing" at K.F.'s behavior. Boyette also testified that Thompson, the visit coach, was present and observed the incident. Thompson instructed the mother with regard to the proper discipline; however, the mother did not respond to Thompson's instructions.

Additionally, on cross-examination, Boyette testified that DCFS had not attempted any weekend transition visits in the mother's home since October 2015. Rather, the agency referred the mother back to visit coaching in an attempt to "see [the mother] exhibit or demonstrate her parenting skills * * * before we started transitioning them again." She opined that the mother "didn't look out for the children's best interest whenever she made that decision [to allow the father to spend the night during the children's visit]." Boyette admitted that DCFS had not attempted counseling with the mother and the four younger children. She reiterated that the mother had done everything her case plan required her to do "except demonstrate the skills she learned in parenting." Further, Boyette testified that the visit coach had expressed her recommendation to allow "no more than two children in the home" at the same time. However, Boyette testified with regard to the conundrum that doing so would entail. She stated:

Moreover, Boyette testified that DCFS had unsuccessfully attempted to instruct the mother with regard to "the structure" required for P.F. and K.F. on multiple occasions.

In response to questions from the juvenile court, Boyette testified as follows: visit coaching is more "hands on" than parenting classes and can be used as an opportunity to encourage appropriate behavior or to redirect a parent to do more appropriate parenting; the mother had been referred to visit coaching on two separate occasions during these proceedings; Odom, in whose care the mother left the children, is not related to the mother; at the time of the hearing, Odom lived in the same trailer park as the mother, in a trailer directly in front of the mother's; DCFS employees had requested that the mother get a protective order against Odom for A.F., since A.F. is in the home with the mother; and, the mother has not attempted to obtain a protective order.

Dr. Gunn-Williams also testified at the hearing. She was accepted by the juvenile court as an expert in the area of marriage and family therapy and psychotherapy. Dr. Gunn-Williams testified that K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. "are experiencing extreme anxiety." According to Dr. Gunn-Williams, the anxiety of K.F. and P.F. results from their uncertainty about "what's going to happen to them in the future, where they're going to live, who they're going to be with." She stated that the twins exhibited anxiety when the time for family visits grew near because "they were afraid they were going to be removed from their foster home." Dr. Gunn-Williams opined that K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. would be negatively affected by an attempt to transition them back into the mother's home. She stated that it would be difficult for the mother to parent all of the children due to special needs of K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. Dr. Gunn-Williams stated, "They are going to need extensive care and one on one care and attention." She also testified that the children's need for structure and stability was being provided in their current placements.

On cross-examination, Dr. Gunn-Williams testified that she did not believe the children were afraid of their mother. She stated that she believed K.F. and P.F. loved the mother; however, the twins "don't know her as well" because they were very young when they lived with the mother. Further, Dr. Gunn-Williams testified that she had "not explored" how the children would cope if all contact with the mother were terminated. She opined that the children needed permanency and if it was not provided, the children would experience "more problems, more mental problems within them than we're seeing right now." Dr. Gunn-Williams emphasized that she was not advocating for the termination of the mother's parental rights. She stated, "I'm asking the Court to just give these children the stability that they need." Further, Dr. Gunn-Williams testified that she had never provided counseling for the mother. However, she stated that she had observed the mother's interaction with K.F. at a facilitation meeting. She stated that K.F. became disruptive and would not stop laughing. As the cottage parents attempted to gain control of the situation, the mother began to laugh along with K.F. Dr. Gunn-Williams admitted that counseling could potentially be beneficial for the mother and the children.

In response to questions posed by the juvenile court, Dr. Gunn-Williams stated: she had observed A.F. and K.F. playing together; P.F., K.F. and the male twin had expressed that they do not like A.F. because "she's mean to them when they go on visits"; the twins are bonded with each other because "they have been together all their lives and they depend on each other"; K.F. and P.F. like to play with their siblings; she counsels the children individually and has only had the opportunity to see the twins together; she could not, in good faith, recommend that K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. be returned to the custody of the mother because "they're handfuls in terms of providing their needs" and it would be very difficult for the mother to handle caring for all of them; and, it would be detrimental for the children to live in such close proximity to Odom's home.

The mother also testified, stating as follows: she has complied with every aspect of her case plan; she does not understand DCFS's concern about her ability to parent her children because she has "never had the chance to parent" them; she did not have any problems during the children's first weekend transition visit; the children got along well and she did not have to discipline them; during the second weekend visit, the father spent one night in her home; DCFS had never told her that the father was not allowed to be around the children; the restraining order had been dropped by that time; she disciplines A.F. by taking "stuff from her"; K.F. "tapped [C.F.] on the face" but he did not "slap" him; she laughed at K.F.'s behavior because "that's just me. I laugh at anything"; she gave K.F. an ice cream cone after the incident because she tries to spoil the children, as she does "not see them as often"; she has benefitted from participating in counseling with A.F. and she would benefit from having counseling with K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F.; she wants custody of all of her children; she does not "want to pick and choose" between the children; when she discovered that Odom had moved into the same trailer park, she called the sheriff's department; she later learned that the restraining order had expired; she did not attempt to get another restraining order; A.F. has not made any comments about Odom living in such close proximity to them; if the other children are returned to her care, they might "have memories" with Odom living nearby; she cannot afford to move from her home but would if she had to do so; it will "be hard" to control and/or discipline all of the children if they are returned to her custody; she would accept any services that are available to assist her with the children; she does not want all of the children to be returned to her custody at the same time because "I don't think I could handle it. I know I couldn't"; and, she would be able to handle the children if they are slowly transitioned back into her care.

On cross-examination, the mother took issue with Dr. Gunn-Williams' opinion that the children should not be returned to her custody. The mother stated, "I don't think it'll be a problem. I just don't think [Dr. Gunn-Williams] wants me to get my kids is what it is." The mother also testified that she did not believe Dr. Gunn-Williams was being truthful when she testified that P.F., K.F. and the male twin had stated that they did not like being around A.F.

Additionally, the mother testified that she did not know if she would be able to financially support all five of the children. She stated that she provided for A.F. by working and receiving "food stamps." She also expressed her desire to "go back to school and try to do that and try to get a better education to * * * make more money." However, she admitted that she had not made any attempts to go back to school or to look for better jobs to earn a better salary.

Esperanza Cannon, the children's maternal grandmother, also testified at the hearing. She testified as follows: she has a close relationship with the mother; she lives in close proximity to her and she sees the mother and A.F. every day; the mother and A.F. have a good relationship; the mother disciplines A.F. by taking her cell phone away and limiting her television time; she attends every DCFS visit with the mother and she has seen the mother interact with K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. during those visits; the children are "wild and rambunctious" during most visits; the mother "tries to keep control of all of them" and does not have any problems doing so; she has observed the mother disciplining K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F.; the children obey their mother; she saw K.F. slap the male twin during one of the visits but "it wasn't a hard slap"; the mother did not discipline K.F. because "I don't think she really thought much about it at that point, but it was discussed after-wards"; the mother "should have done something [about the slapping incident]" but she didn't"; the mother should be given the opportunity to get all of the children back but "not all four of them at one time"; getting all of the children at one time would be difficult for the mother because "that would be hard for anybody"; and, she and her brother are willing to assist the mother with the children.

In response to the juvenile court's questions, Cannon testified as follows: she has prior felony drug convictions; she was aware that the children were living with Odom; she and her fiancé had attempted to go to Odom's home to take the children out to eat, but Odom would "slam the door in our faces"; she and her fiancé had told the DCFS worker that they would "rather get two other kids here and y'all take [A.F.] back because she's showing out"; she made the remark in the presence of A.F. because she was trying to get A.F. to "straighten up and behave"; and, she attends all of the family visits with her daughter and the children because she loves her grandchildren.

After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the juvenile court found that with regard to K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F., a change of the permanent plan of reunification to adoption was the most appropriate, least restrictive setting under the circumstances. The court also suspended the visitation between the mother and the younger children for 60 days.

The mother appeals.12

DISCUSSION

The mother contends the juvenile court erred in changing the permanent plan from reunification to adoption because the state failed to meet its burden of proving the change was justified. The mother argues that the only reason the plan was changed was because the father spent the night at her house during one of her unsupervised overnight visits with P.F., C.F. and C.F. She also argues that she has complied with every single aspect of her case plan and she has demonstrated her ability to parent A.F., who has been in her care for over a year. Further, the mother argues that DCFS should have provided more instructions or counseling for her and the four younger children, rather than terminating the home visits and changing the plan from reunification to adoption.

Title VI of the Louisiana Children's Code, i.e., LSA-Ch.C. arts. 601-725.3, sets forth the provisions regarding children in need of care proceedings.13 LSA-Ch.C. art. 681(A) provides:

Under LSA-Ch.C. art. 683(A), the trial court shall impose the least restrictive disposition of the alternatives that the court finds is consistent with the circumstances of the case, the health and safety of the child and the best interest of society. LSA-Ch.C. art. 702 provides, in pertinent part:

The trial court shall consider a child's need for continuing contact with any relative by blood, adoption or affinity with whom the child has an established and significant relationship as one of several factors in determining the permanent plan that is most appropriate and in the best interest of the child. LSA-Ch.C. art. 702(D). The trial court shall determine whether the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the parent and child or to finalize the child's placement in an alternative safe and permanent home while considering that the child's health and safety will be the paramount concern in the court's determination of the permanent plan. LSA-Ch.C. art. 702(E). More than simply protecting parental rights, our judicial system is required to protect the children's rights to thrive and survive. State in the Interest of C.S., 49,955 (La.App.2d Cir. 3/18/15), 163 So.3d 193.

An appellate court's review of a juvenile court's permanent placement determination is governed by the manifest error standard. State in the Interest of N.C. & M.G., 50,446 (La.App.2d Cir. 11/18/15), 184 So.3d 760; State ex rel. C.M. v. Willis, 41,908 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/27/06), 946 So.2d 316, writ denied, 2007-0190 (La. 2/16/07), 949 So.2d 413. In a manifest error review, it is important that the appellate court not substitute its own opinion when it is the juvenile court that is in the unique position to see and hear the witnesses as they testify. State in the Interest of N.C. & M.G., supra; State in the Interest of L.M., 46,078 (La. App.2d Cir. 1/26/11), 57 So.3d 518. Where there is conflicting testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even when the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable as those of the juvenile court. Id. If the juvenile court's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the appellate court may not reverse, even though convinced that, had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Id.

In the instant case, we must first note that the termination of the mother's parental rights is not at issue. The sole issue before this Court is the juvenile court's ruling which changed the permanency goal from reunification to adoption.

We have reviewed this record in its entirety. In support of its ruling changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, the juvenile court stated:

We agree with the juvenile court's findings. K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. have been in DCFS custody since November 2013, and DCFS has made reasonable efforts to reunify the mother and the children. It is clear that the mother was successful in regaining custody of the oldest child. However, the record demonstrates that the mother has struggled with her ability to parent A.F., even with the assistance of counseling. Additionally, a review of the record reveals that parenting K.F., P.F., C.F. and C.F. proved to be difficult for the mother. In fact, the mother admitted that it would "be hard" to parent all of the children if they are returned to her custody. Dr. Gunn-Williams, Boyette, Thompson and the CASA volunteer all agreed that the mother did not demonstrate the parenting skills necessary to parent all five children simultaneously. Although the mother was provided the assistance of a visit/parenting coach to assist her with the care and discipline of her children during supervised visits, the testimony and documentary evidence established that she did not "step up" to effectively parent and/or discipline her children.

We find that the decision of the juvenile court, that the permanent case plan be changed from reunification to adoption, is in the best interest of the children and is the most appropriate, least restrictive measure under these circumstances. The juvenile court's ruling is fully supported by the record and is not manifestly erroneous.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court changing the permanent case plan for the children in this matter from reunification with the mother to adoption. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the mother.

AFFIRMED.