COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Beal es and Senior Judge Clements

RENE CHAVEZ MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2127-13-4 PER CURIAM MAY 20, 2014 ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ARLINGTON COUNTY William T. Ne wman, Judge (Mark S. Thrash, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Jason L. McCandless, Assistan t County Attorney ; Julia Ovando, Guardian ad litem for the minor child, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Rene Chavez appeals an order finding that he sexually abused a minor child. Chavez argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that he a bused, sexually or otherwise, his girlfriend’s child. Upon reviewing th e record and briefs of the parties, we conc lude that the circuit court did not err. Accordi ngly, we affirm the decisi on of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favor able to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - In November 2012, Dora del Carmen Hernand ez lived in a three-floor duplex. Chavez and Jenny Miranda-Lopez rented the basement from Hernandez, but Hernandez still used the clothes washer and dryer located in the basement. One day during the first week of November 2012, Hernandez went to the basement to take clothes out of the dryer. She saw Chav ez with Miranda-Lopez’s one -year-old son, who was not wearing a diaper. Hernandez saw Chavez put his mouth on the child’s “private parts.” Chavez’s pants zipper was down, but he was fully clothed. She then saw Chavez turn the child around and “slowly” rub the child against his “pri vate parts” and down his body as he placed the child on the floor. Upon seeing Ch avez’s interaction with the ch ild, Hernandez initially thought, “what a strange way to play with him.” The n, she went upstairs to see if Miranda-Lopez was home and later told the child’s mother to “protect her child more.” Hernandez testified that she had sufficient light to see Chavez and the child because the lights on the stairs and in the kitchen were lit. Sh e does not wear glasses. On November 26, 2012, the Arlington County Department of Human Services (the Department) filed a petition requesting a prelimin ary protective order and alleged that Chavez abused or neglected the child. On Decem ber 20, 2012, the Arlington County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District C ourt (the JDR court) found that Chavez abused the child and ordered him to have no contact with the chil d. Chavez appealed to the circuit court. After hearing all of the evidence and argument, the circuit court held that the Department met its burden of proof, by a preponderance of th e evidence, that Chavez sexually abused the child. It ordered that the prot ective order remain in place and remanded the matter to the JDR court. The circuit court entered an order reflecting its rulings on September 30, 2013. This appeal followed.- 3 - ANALYSIS Chavez argues that the evidence was insuffici ent to support the circu it court’s finding of abuse. He contends Hernandez’s testimony was not credible. He questions how well she could have seen him because the lighting was poor. “It is well established that the trier of fact as certains a witness’ credibility, determines the weight to be given to their testimony, and ha s the discretion to accept or reject any of the witness’ testimony.” Street v. Street , 25 Va. App. 380, 387, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1997) ( en banc ). The circuit court had an opport unity to see and hear the witnesses and found Hernandez to be a credible witness. She testified that sh e could clearly see Chavez and described in detail what he was doing. Chavez further argues that the Department di d not meet its burden of proving that he sexually abused the child. He notes that Hern andez initially thought he was playing with the child. He was fully clothed duri ng the incident. He also assert s that when a person is holding a child and placing a child on the floor, he or she “ always moves the child down his or her body in order to get it to the floor.” (Emphasis in original). Chavez cont ends the evidence was insufficient to prove that he abused the child. An “abused or neglected child” is one “[w] hose parents or other person responsible for his care commits or allows to be committed any se xual act upon a child in violation of the law.” Code § 16.1-228(4). “If a petition alleging abuse or neglect of a child has been filed, . . . the court shall determine whether the allegations of abuse or neglect have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” Code § 16.1-253(F). “[T]he preponderance of the evidence standard is an appropriate standard for an abuse and neglect proceed ing.” Wright v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.- 4 - Servs., 9 Va. App. 411, 414, 388 S.E.2d 477, 479 (1990); see also Cumb o v. Dickenson Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 62 Va. App. 124, 130, 742 S.E.2d 885, 888 (2013). In order to prove sexual abuse by a preponde rance of the evidence, the Department had to prove both an intentional touching and that Chavez act ed with “the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify.” See Code § 18.2-67.10. “‘Intent is the purpose formed in a person’s mind that may, and often must, be inferred from the facts and circum stances in a particular case.’” Blaylock v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 57 9, 589, 496 S.E.2d 97, 104 (1998) (quoting Ridley v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 834, 836, 252 S.E.2d 313, 314 (1979)). When it issued its ruling, th e circuit court admitted that if the standard of proof was beyond a reasonable doubt, then the De partment might not have met its burden. However, since the standard of proof was “mere pre ponderance,” the Department only had to prove “it’s more likely than not” that Chavez abused the child. Under that standard, the circuit court held that the Department met its burden of pr oof. There was sufficient eviden ce that Chavez put his mouth on the child’s “private parts” when the child was not we aring a diaper. Alth ough Chavez was fully clothed, his zipper was down. There also was evidence that Chav ez “slowly” rubbed the child down his body. Considering the totality of the evidence, the circuit cour t could infer that Chavez had the intent to sexually abuse the child. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in findi ng that the evidence wa s sufficient to find that Chavez ab used the child.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.