evidence, as that is a task best left for the finder of fact, and when an appellant raises a claim of insufficient evidence, we will accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (2002). ¶ 25 Consistent with this purpose, findings of fact and conclusions of law should be sufficiently specific to enable the appellate court to provide effective review. This conclusion is consistent with our interpretation of analogous rules and statutes that require express factual findings. We demand the level of specificity necessary to determine whether the trial court correctly applied the law. See Gilliland v. Rodriquez, 77 Ariz. 163, 167, 268 P.2d 334, 337 (1954) (<HOLDING>). Findings must include “all of the ‘ultimate’
holding that the district court may adopt facts contained in the psr without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence holding that arizona rule of civil procedure 52a requires the court to find only the ultimate facts not the evidentiary facts upon which the ultimate facts are based holding that a proper review of the sufficiency of the evidence under the due process clause gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts holding federal courts should follow state court decisions that are based on facts essentially indistinguishable from the facts at hand holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case