Determination T3 Mother argues that the juvenile court "implicit[ly]" and exclusively relied on its finding of grounds for termination to support its best interests determination and failed to consider "unrefuted evidence of the loving and beneficial developed relationship between [her] and the [Children]." We review Mother's challenge to the juvenile court's best interests determination for an abuse of discretion. See In re Adoption of T.H., 2007 UT App 841, 19, 171 P.3d 480. T4 Mother is correct that her parental rights cannot be terminated solely upon the juvenile court's finding of grounds for termination and that a finding of grounds does not necessarily diminish the import of "a positive and strong parent-child bond." Cf. In re D.R.A., 2011 UT App 897, ¶¶ 18, 21, 266 P.3d 844 (<HOLDING>). However, we conclude that, on its own, this
holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement 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 the department is required to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of a parents parental rights holding that evidence did not support termination of parental rights to two children despite mothers prior conviction for killing her stepchild 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