*1 Before J UDGES T HORNE V OROS C HRISTIANSEN .

PER CURIAM: R.P. (Mother) appeals parental rights children, S.P. We affirm. argues insufficient conclusion A juvenile will overturned are

In re clearly erroneous. In re E.R. 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. A of is clearly erroneous when, in light of the evidence supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the evidence. Id. In reviewing a juvenile order, this court “will not disturb the juvenile findings and conclusions the evidence clearly preponderates against the as or the court has abused its discretion.” In re R.A.J. 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 6, P.2d “When a foundation for the [juvenile] court’s decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage a reweighing of the evidence.” B.R. UT ¶ 12, 435. asserts that the juvenile court did properly weigh the She contends that some evidence unfavorable to her, such as her two attempts on the children’s lives, given too much weight, and that evidence favorable to her not given enough weight. However, this court does reweigh where is a foundation for the juvenile court’s decision. id.

¶4 Evidence presented the juvenile court’s decision that the Specifically, the showed Mother would likely always a safety risk for children because she is able mask symptoms present well even when she is off medication. Additionally, when an unstructured environment, has shown a pattern going off her medication. Although Mother could hide symptoms a time, mental illness ultimately manifests itself severe episodes put herself others at risk. Conversely, stepmother provides a stable and

loving influence. Stepmother is willing adopt children and make relationship have already formed permanent and legal. Given Mother’s safety risks availability a stable permanent relationship with Stepmother, court had sufficient find Mother’s best ¶6 Affirmed.

The issue asserted petition whether sufficient that arguments were wide ranging, however, confined challenging To extent issues were raised arguments, we find them without merit do address them further. State v. Carter (Utah 1989).