Cited by

We will “accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact if reasonable evidence and inferences support them, and will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous.” ¶ 9 (2016).

in a light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court’s findings.” ¶ 2 (2016) (citing Maricopa Cty.

It is 5 MATTHEW J. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court well-established that “a child’s prospective adoption is a benefit that can support a best-interests finding.” - 5, ¶ 16 (2016) (citing Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

At that point, the court’s primary concern “is ‘protecting a child’s interest in stability and security.’” ¶ 15 (2016) (citation omitted).

See Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F. , , 4 ¶ 15, , 356 (2016) ; see generally supra ¶ 9.

¶ 9 (2016); Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

v. Oscar O., ¶ 6 (App. 2004); ¶ 16 (2016).

in a light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court’s findings.” ¶ 2 (2016) (citing Maricopa Cty.

“Because the juvenile court is in the best position to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility, we accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact if reasonable evidence and inferences support them, and [we] will affirm a [termination] order unless it is clearly erroneous.” ¶ 9 (2016).

Because a best interests finding may be supported by benefits to the child resulting from a potential adoption that provides the child with stability, –4, ¶ 12 (2016), the superior court did not abuse its discretion by finding that termination was in A.W.’s best interests.

As such, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s best-interests finding, ¶ 2 (2016), and applying our deferential standard of review, we conclude that the court did not err in finding DCS failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that severance of Mother’s parental rights at this time is in A.R.’s best interests.

¶ 9 (2016); see also Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 18 (2018).

Termination of a parent-child relationship is in a child’s best interests “if the child would be harmed if the relationship continued or would benefit from the termination.” ¶ 16 (2016) (citation omitted).

Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150, ¶ 13 ( ¶ 16 (2016)).