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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

IN RE JELOHREA J

.
No. 1 CA

- JV 17

- 0562

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JV601224 The Honorable Shellie F. Smith
, Judge Pro Temp ore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office
, Mesa By Colleen Engineer Counsel for Appellant

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
, Phoenix By Adena J. Astrowsky C ounsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. FILED 5-3-2018IN RE JELORHEA J. Decision of the Court

2 J O N E S , Judge:

¶1 Jelorhea J. (Juvenile) appeals the juvenile court’s disposition order placing him in a locked residential treatment center (RTC)

. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In February 2017, Juvenile was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the time, Juvenile was living with his aunt, who had found the marijuana and paraphernalia in his

room and reported it to the police

. In April 2017, Juvenile participated in a psychological evaluation with Dr. Hirdes, who noted co ncerns that Juvenile was acting out and would continue to do so without adequate treatme nt. In a written report, Dr. Hirdes recommended that Juvenile be placed in RTC.

¶3 In November 2017
, Juvenile pleaded delinquent to possession of marijuana. Before holding disposition, the juvenile court granted Juvenile ’s request for an updated evaluation. Dr. Hirdes conducted a second evaluation and again recommend placement in RTC

. At disposition , the j uvenile p robation o fficer (JPO) agreed with Dr. Hirdes’ s recommendation , noting that before adjudication, Juvenile had been unsuccessful in an intensive outpatient program because he failed three drug test s and did not attend treatment. Juvenile argued a less restrictive in

- home service was available through the Department of Child S afety

. ¶4 At disposition, t he trial court placed Juvenile on twelve months ’ supervised probation and ordered he be placed in RTC. Juvenile timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 8

- 235 (A)
, 1 12

- 120.21(A) (1) , and

- 2101(A)(1). See Rita J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 196 Ariz. 5 12, 513, ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (“[T]he final order in a delinquency action is the disposition order.”) (citing Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. J

- 78151

- S , 119 Ariz. 320, 321 (App. 1978)).

¶5 In February 2018, the juvenile court reviewed Juvenile’s status in RTC and
, a fter considering new reports from RTC and the JPO
, explicitly

1 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.IN RE JELORHEA J. Decision of the Court

3 found that continued placement in RTC was necessary and the least restrictive alternative.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Juvenile argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering him to RTC because a less restrictive alternative existed. We will not disturb the court’s disposition absent an abuse of discretion. In re Miguel R. , 204 Ariz. 328, 331, ¶ 4 (App. 2003 ) (citing In re Kristen C. , 193 Ariz. 562, 563, ¶ 7 (App. 1999)). The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine an appropriate disposition of a delinquent juvenile

. Id . at ¶ 3 (quoting Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV

- 510312 , 183 Ariz. 116, 118 (A pp. 1995) ) . The court is authorized to order residential treatment
, but
p lacement in RTC must “ be supported by a written psychological, psychiatric or medical evaluation recommending residential treatment services .” A.R.S. § 8

- 341.01(A). Additionally, t he court must find by clear and convincing evidence that : “ [t]he child requires residential treatment services to address the child ’ s behavioral, psychological, social or mental health needs ,” and “ [a] vailable alternatives to residential treatment services were considered, but that residential treatment services are the least
restr ictive alternative.” A.R.S. § 8

- 341.01(B).

¶7 The record here reflects t he juvenile court received and considered a written psychological evaluation which recommended Juvenile be placed in RTC . The evaluation noted Juvenile had demonstrated runaway behavior, school truancy, and “increasingly oppositional behavior within the home of his .

. . aunt.” Additionally, at disposition, the JPO agreed with the psychologist’s recommendatio n, noting Juvenile had not been successful in a le ss restrictive outpatient program , having repeatedly failed to attend treatment and test ed positive for drug use. Accordingly, the court acted within its discretion in order ing Juvenile to RTC.

¶8 Juvenile al so argues the juvenile court erred at disposition by not mak ing specific , written findings that he required residential treatment and it was the least restrictive alternative

. Although the court did not expressly state those findings in its order , we pres ume the court considered those factors and made those findings before ordering residential
treatment. See In re Niky R. , 203 Ariz. 387, 392, ¶ 21 (App. 2002) ( “We assume that judges follow and apply the law” and therefore presume the trial court “made e very finding necessary to support the judgment.”) (quoting Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS

- 3594 , 133 Ariz. 582, 585 (App. 1982) ) (citations omitted)

. M oreover, the record demonstrates the court hadIN RE JELORHEA J. Decision of the Court

4 sufficient facts before it to find by clear and convinci ng evidence that Juvenile needed residential treatment to address his behavioral, psychological, social or mental health needs; that available alternatives were considered; and tha t residential treatment was the least restrictive alternative. See supra ¶ 3

. Finally, the court’s minute entry from the February 2018 status hearing includes the specific findings that A.R.S. § 8

- 341.01(B) require s , rendering our consideration of the issue moot. Accordingly, we find no error.

CONCLUSION

¶9 The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.