NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(c); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G).

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KELLY, Presiding Judge.

¶1 In this appeal J.B., born October 2001, challenges the juvenile court's ruling denying the Arizona Department of Child Safety's (DCS)1 motion for termination of her father, Michael B.'s, parental rights on the grounds that J.B. had been in court-ordered, out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).2

¶2 Before it may terminate a parent's rights, a juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one statutory ground for severance exists and must find by a preponderance of the evidence that terminating the parent's rights is in the best interests of the child. See A.R.S. §§ 8-533(B), 8-537(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, ¶ 41, 110 P.3d 1013, 1022 (2005). When reviewing an appeal from an order denying a motion to terminate a parent's rights, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's ruling. See Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 77, ¶ 13, 107 P.3d 923, 928 (App. 2005). Thus, "we will accept the juvenile court's findings of fact unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings." Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). That is, we will not disturb the ruling unless the factual findings are clearly erroneous. Id.

¶3 J.B. and her half-sister, I.A., were removed from their mother's care in August 2012 "due to the mother's untreated, unstable mental health and substance abuse." The mother did not know where Michael was, and DCS served him with its dependency petition by publication. J.B. was adjudicated dependent as to Michael in November 2012. DCS located and contacted Michael by January 2013. He had been incarcerated before J.B. was taken into custody, and remained so until November 2013, when he was released to community supervision. He later violated the terms of that supervision and was incarcerated again in 2014 with a release date in June.

¶4 DCS filed a motion to terminate Michael's parental rights to J.B. in January 2014. After a contested severance hearing in May 2014, the juvenile court denied the motion. In a detailed ruling, the court determined DCS had not provided appropriate reunification services and had not established that Michael would not be able to properly parent in the "near future," as required by § 8-533(B)(8)(c).

¶5 On appeal, J.B. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining DCS had not met its burden to establish the ground for severance and asserts "[t]he overwhelming evidence presented at trial" supported a contrary conclusion. This argument, however, amounts to a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, and that we will not do. Jesus M., 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 12, 53 P.3d at 207. And, because "reasonable evidence in the record supports the . . . court's findings" and because the court thoroughly and correctly addressed the claims raised, "little would be gained by our further `rehashing the trial court's correct ruling' in our decision." Id. ¶ 16, quoting State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993).

¶6 We therefore adopt the juvenile court's ruling and affirm its order denying DCS's motion to terminate Michael's parental rights.