With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Prior versions of the children’s code statutorily established the very low standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” that the enumerated crime was com mitted and required simple consideration of whether the child was amenable to treatment as a juvenile. See State v. Doe, 103 N.M. 233, 238^0, 704 P.2d 1109, 1114-16 (Ct.App. 1985). Under the current statute, the trial court must make a specific finding that the child is not amenable. Whatever the current standard of proof is for the trial court to make this specific finding, whether it is preponderance of the evidence as advocated by the State or something higher, we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence, see In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039, ¶ 15, 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318, or abuse of discretion 1111 (1983) (<HOLDING>); In re Ernesto M., Jr., 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d

A: holding statute which required consideration rather than a finding of amenability was constitutional
B: holding requirement of additional consideration and presumption of atwill employment are both rules of construction rather than substance and implied contract needs no additional consideration where intention of parties is clear
C: holding after consideration of a single significance factor that an eis was required
D: holding that a charge for the use of a public wharf was a user fee rather than a tax for constitutional purposes
A.