scrutiny is applicable “if the program or disposition imposes a burden upon suspect classifications or impinges upon and limits fundamental rights.” We disagree and apply a rational basis test because a fundamental right is not implicated nor is youth a suspect classification. See In re Brandon H., 195 Ariz. 387, 388-89, 988 P.2d 619, 620-21 (App.1999); Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-114428, 160 Ariz. 90, 91, 770 P.2d 394, 395 (App.1989). Equal protection requires only that reasonable grounds exist for establishing classifications, but that within the class, the individuals are treated equally. See No. JV-500210, 177 Ariz. at 5, 864 P.2d at 562. Our state’s cases have held that the equal protection clause does not necessarily require that we treat juveniles and adults alike. Id. (<HOLDING>); Maricopa County Juv. Action No. J-86509, 124
holding that unlike adults juveniles may not reject probation holding that probation is not a sentence holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights holding juveniles do not have constitutional right to a jury trial but striking down statute that allowed juveniles to receive adult sentence without a jury trial three justices dissented reasoning juveniles should be entitled to a juiy trial under all cases because changes to juvenile justice code treated juveniles like criminals recognizing that juveniles have no right to jury trial and that juvenile proceedings unlike adult prosecutions are rehabilitative in nature