M.B. and further visitation may have an even greater adverse effect on M.B. M.B. needs the stability of a permanent family; M.B.’s foster parents wish to adopt her and she wishes to become a permanent member of the foster family. In the prior termination proceeding, family reunification had not been ruled out; a bond existed between the children and parents; there was no evidence that visitation had negative consequences on M.B.; and the adoptive option for M.B. was unclear. In their argument on appeal, appellants confuse- the standard to be employed in a change of goal proceeding with a termination proceeding. In a change of goal proceeding, the trial court must focus on the child and determine the goal in accordance with the child’s best interests. See In Interest of Sweeney, supra (<HOLDING>). In a termination proceeding, the focus is on
holding court properly applied best interest of child standard when determining whether placement goal should be changed holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted holding that  best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition holding that the best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition