NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

TIMOTHY W.
, Appellant
,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY
, T.W. Appellee s

.

No. 1 CA

- JV 18

- 0184

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015JD201700072 The Honorable Douglas Camacho
, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC
, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Tucson By Autumn Spritzer C ounsel for Appellee

, Department of Child Safety

FILED 9-25-2018TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W. Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C A M P B E L L , Judge:

¶1 Timothy W. (“Father”) appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his son, T. W

. 1 He argues that the superior court erred by concluding that termination was in the c hild’ s best interest s

. Because reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s findings, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Father is the biological parent of the child , born in August 2010. The boy lived with his mother (“Mother”) in Utah until July 2017
, when Mother sent him to stay with his paternal grandmother (“Grandmother”) in Arizona

. There, the child disclosed to Grandm other that he was being physically abused in M other’s home

. ¶3 After the boy’s disclosure, Grandmother reported the abuse to the Department of Child Safety
, wh ich initiated an investigation

. The boy disclosed to a DCS investigator that he was afraid to retu rn to Mother’s care because Mother’s boyfriend had physically abused him . He also disclosed that Mother knew of the abuse and sometimes participated or thanked her boyfriend for disciplining him. T he investigator then contacted Father, who indicated that he was unable to care for his child because of his housing and financial restraint s. Father also told the investigator that he had a history of substance abuse with methamphetamine and marijuana, and that he had used both within the past month.

¶4 The super ior court found the child dependent as to Father in November 2017. DCS offered rehabilitative services to Father, including drug testing, parenting classes , and supervised visits

. Father did not participate in any of the offered services.

¶5 At the request of DCS, t he superior court changed the case plan to severance and adoption and
, i n April 2018
, t he superior court held

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W. Decision of the Court

3 a contested t ermination hearing. At that time, al though the boy had been living with Grandmother
, DCS temporarily placed him in foster care because of allegations of inappropriate discipline by Grandmother

. 2 Th e removal and new placement of the boy caused him to misbehave and become very emotional

. Because of the disruption in the child’s placement
, Father requested a continuanc e, which the superior court denied. 3

¶6 At the termination hearing, DCS personnel testified to the boy’s disclosure of the abuse inflicted on him while in Mother ’s care
, as well

as F ather’s substance abuse and failure to participate in DCS services. A

case manager testified that Grandmother was willing to adopt her grandson , and that DCS hoped to return the boy to her

. The case manager explained that the boy wanted to live with Grandmother but if adopt ion by Gran d mother was not possible based on the allegations against her
, the boy

was a loving, funny, and sweet child who was otherwise adoptable

. Finally, the case manager testified that termination of F ather’s parental rights was in the c hild’s best interests because Father failed to participate in se rvices offered by DCS and had not addressed his substance abuse.

¶7 The superior court terminated the parental rights of both parents. Specifically, the superior court terminated Father’s parental rights under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 8

- 533(B)( 3), finding by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities due to a history of chronic drug abuse. The court also found by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of F ather’s parental rights was in t he boy ’s best interests. The court reasoned that termination would benefit the c hild by enabling adoption by Grandmother or an alternative caregiver
, which would provide permanency and stability.

DISCUSSION

¶8 To terminate parental rights under A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B), the superior court must find that a statutory ground exists by clear and convincing evidence. A.R.S. § 8

- 537(B). The court must also find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the ch ild’s best interests. A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M. , 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ ¶ 41

- 42 (2005). Here, Father does not challenge the statutory grou n d for termination

2 At a July 2018 review hearing, DCS informed the superior court that the boy is again placed with Grandmother and she is in the process of adopting the child.

3 Father does not appeal this ruling.TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W. Decision of the Court

4 of his parental rights; he argues only that the superior court erred by f inding that ter mination was in the c hild’s best interests

. ¶9 As the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, the superior court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O. , 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4 ( App. 2004). We therefore view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to affirming the superior court’s order, Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 203 Ariz. 278, 2 82, ¶ 12 (App. 2002), and will reverse only if no reasonable evidence supports its factual findings, Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety , 240 Ariz. 282, 287, ¶ 16 (App. 2016). “ W e do not reweigh the evidence.” Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 223 A riz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009)

. ¶10 A determination that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interest s must include a finding either that the child will benefit from termination or that the child will be harmed by the continuation of the relationship. Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec ., 224 Ariz. 3 73, 379, ¶ 30 (App. 2010). Evidence that an adoptive placement is immediately available or that a child is otherwise adoptable can provide a basis (improved permanency and stability) for determining that the child will benefit from termination. Id.

¶11 Here, Father argues termination was not in the boy’s best i nterests because he was not in an adopti ve placement at the time of the hearing and had recently suffered emotional trauma upon being removed from Grandmother’s home

. But t he court found that regardless of the

c hild’s current placement, another adoptive pl acement could be located. This finding is supported by testimony from the DCS case manager that the boy is adoptable. Thus, reasonable evidence support ed the superior court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interests

.TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W. Decision of the Court

5 CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s termination order

.