juvenile court had already determined that R.H. was under the wardship of DCS and that she was to be placed in foster care. The no reasonable efforts order, in addition to finding that DCS was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and R.H., suspended Mother’s visitation with R.H. The permanency order changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. In short, whether or not there is an order denominated a “dispositional decree” in the record, the juvenile court’s orders as a whole serve the purpose of a dispositional decree and further, effectively end the relationship between Mother and R.H. and allow DCS to move forward with termination proceedings. If Mother is not allowed to appeal this issue now, she may never be able to. See Smith, 635 N.E.2d at 1148 (<HOLDING>). Thus, whether or not the court’s orders are
holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding that because the mother did not appeal the issue of whether she was entitled to courtappointed counsel in a chins proceeding until following termination proceedings she had waived the issue holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that the district court did not err in failing to address the defendant personally to determine whether she understood the rights she was waiving by admitting that she violated the conditions of her probation