and uncle and the children had stability for the first time in their lives. Id. at 218-14. Additionally, Angie Deeds, the children's therapist, testified that she believed it would be harmful to the children to continue the parent-child relationship. Id. at 118. Deeds testified that the children had been doing better since having more stability in their lives and would continue to improve with stability. Id. In sum, these recommendations by the caseworker and the therapist coupled with the evidence of Wedding's extensive drug use, her failure to complete court-ordered services, and testimony that the children were thriving in their current home is sufficient to support a finding that termination of parental rights is in the children's best interest. See Im re A.J., 881 N.E.2d at 718-19 (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the trial court
holding that evidence of the fathers conduct in stabbing the childrens mother alleged to endanger the childrens physical and emotional wellbeing is pertinent to and entwined in the issue of the childrens best interest holding that the recommendations of the childrens caseworker and guardian ad litem coupled with evidence of the mothers extensive drug history her incompletion of courtordered services and testimony that the children were happy and doing well in their foster homes were sufficient for the trial court to determine that termination of parental rights was in the childrens best interest recognizing that upon request a district court may remove the guardian ad litem andor  appoint another guardian ad litem to protect the childrens interests holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents holding that though the mother admitted that there were grounds to support termination of her parental rights the benefits of allowing the mothers relationship with her teenage daughter to continue were too palpable and the benefits of severing it too speculative for us to agree that the state had shown by clear and convineing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the child