THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24, Ariz.R.P.Juv.Ct. 103 (G); ARCAP 28).

MEMORANDUM DECISION

IRVINE, Judge.

¶1 Brian T. ("Father") appeals from the superior court's order severing his parental rights to his biological daughter Jazmin T. ("the child"). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The child was born in October 2005. In December 2005, Father admitted to the Arizona Department of Economic Security ("ADES") that he had sexual thoughts of touching the child while changing her diaper. In November 2008, ADES received another report that the child was living in a roach-infested home. Father admitted he had a prior juvenile conviction in New Mexico for molesting a seven-year-old boy.

¶3 In October 2009, the child was taken to a hospital emergency room to treat vaginal bleeding. Both parents and the child explained that she injured herself by falling on the wooden frame of her toddler bed. The doctor suspected sexual abuse and talked to the child alone. The child told him that Father touched her private area. The child also told a hospital social worker that both the child's parents had touched her "down there." They notified the police.

¶4 A forensic sexual-assault exam was performed, and the nurse concluded that the child suffered two separate internal vaginal injuries inconsistent with the parents' explanation. ADES and the police searched the child's home and found it "infested with roaches." ADES took custody of the child, alleging that she was dependent as to each parent based on neglect and sexual abuse or failure to protect the child from sexual abuse.

¶5 During the investigation, the child reported other instances of sexual abuse and exhibited sexualized behavior. When the parents visited, the child reportedly said, "I don't want to see them . . . they're nasty," and repeatedly slapped Father's hands away when he tried to touch her. Father stipulated as to dependency.

¶6 In January 2010, ADES filed a petition to terminate both parents' rights to the child based on neglect and wilfull abuse under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 8-533(B)(2) (Supp. 2010). Following an evidentiary hearing, the family court found that ADES failed to prove the child was harmed by unsanitary living conditions, but found clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse. Accordingly, it severed both parents' relationships to the child. Father has timely appealed. The biological mother is not a party in this case.

DISCUSSION

¶7 The sole issue on appeal is whether the family court could find by clear and convincing evidence that the child was sexually abused under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2). Father argues there was insufficient evidence because the nurse did not rule out the possibility, however remote, that the child's injuries were self-inflicted. He also argues the child's statements were not credible because of her young age. We disagree.

¶8 Because the trial court is in the best position to resolve conflicting evidence and assess credibility, we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal, but defer to its factual findings unless clearly erroneous. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12, 53 P.3d 203, 207 (App. 2002) . We will affirm unless there is no reasonable evidence to support the trial court's findings. Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 2, 982 P.2d 1290, 1291 (App. 1998) .

¶9 Section 8-533(B)(2) permits the trial court to terminate parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence of abuse, including situations of abuse that the parents knew or should have known existed. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) (Supp. 2010) and -537(B) (2007). The definition of "abuse" specifically includes "[i]nflicting or allowing sexual abuse." A.R.S. § 8-201(2)(a) (Supp. 2010).

¶10 Reasonable evidence supports the finding that the child in this case was sexually abused. The forensic nurse testified that she did not believe the vaginal wounds were self-inflicted and that it was unlikely the child would have caused herself such pain. She said that the nature and location of the injuries were "highly suggestive of a penetrating injury" rather than a fall. She further opined that the bed frame, which was rounded and "a few inches wide," would have likely caused external bruising, yet there was none. Based on the physical evidence, the nurse concluded that the child was sexually abused on two separate occasions.

¶11 In addition, a psychological examination concluded that the child exhibited sexualized behavior consistent with her reports of sexual abuse. Because the child lived at home and Father was the primary custodian, it was reasonable to infer that the abuse occurred while the child was in his care, or that he knew or should have known about it.

¶12 Finally, Father has not appealed the finding that termination was in the child's best interest. We therefore accept that finding and do not address it further. On this record, we find no error.

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm.

PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge, MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge, Concurring.