Filed 9/18/14 In re G.D. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re G.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B254275 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK02639)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
JOEL D., SR.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Marpet, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Ca l. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Eva E. Chick, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Denise M. Hippach, De puty County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *2 G.D., M.D. and E.D. (children), ages 17, 15, and 9, were decl ared dependents of the juvenile court and were re leased into their parents’ custody. We conclude that jurisdiction was warranted because two loaded firearms including an assault weapon
were found in the room where tw o of the children slept. We further conclude the juvenile court properly ordered father to attend a paren ting class. We affirm the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. Petition On December 11, 2013, th e Los Angeles County Depa rtment of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) alleging: “On 12/05/2013, th e children[’s] mother . . . Maria . . . and father, Joel . . . , placed the children in a detrimental and e ndangering situation in that a loaded rifle, a firearm and ammunition were found in the childre n’s home within access
to the children. A loaded fi rearm was found in the garage of the family home. Such a detrimental and endangering situation established for th e children by the parents endangers the children’s physical health and safety and places the children at risk of physical harm, damage and danger.” 2. Supporting Evidence
Officers searched mother and father’s hom e and recovered a loaded assault rifle, unloaded short barrel shotgun, and gang paraphernalia in a bedroom occupied by M.D., E.D. and two adult siblings. In the detached garage occupied by a nother adult sibling, a detective found a loaded semiautomatic handgu n. The children’s adult siblings were gang members. Mother denied knowing her adult childre n (adult siblings) were gang members. But mother acknowledged that one of her sons previously had been arrested. Father denied knowing both ab out the gang affiliation and about th e prior arrest. Father denied any knowledge of the firearms in the home. Father later ac knowledged that one of the adult siblings “was hanging out with” a ga ng member. The chil dren also denied3 knowledge of their siblings’ ga ng affiliation and of th e presence of loaded firearms in the
home. Adult siblings Joel, Jr., and Rafael had pr eviously been arrest ed for possession of assault weapons. They were arrested but had been released prior to the jurisdictional hearing. Detective Eguia reported that mother and father’s apartment is very small “and it is nearly impossible for the parents not to know what their kids are doing.” 3. Juvenile Court Findings The court concluded: “[T]his is not just one weapon. This is three weapons. One of them is an automatic weapon . They were all loaded. Tw o of them were in a bedroom where two of the minors were sleeping. . . . [F ]or me to believe that this mother and this father did not know that their sons had guns in the home just belies logic.” The court concluded there was a current risk to G.D., M.D., and E.D. because the adult siblings
would move back home if the court terminated jurisdiction. The court ordered the adult siblings liv e outside the family home and left the
children in mother and father’s custody. Mother and father were ordered to attend parenting classes. Father appealed from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
DISCUSSSION 1. Jurisdiction “In dependency proceedings, the social se rvices agency has th e burden to prove by a preponderance of the eviden ce that the minor who is the subject of the dependency petition comes under the juvenile court’s juri sdiction. [Citations.] We review the jurisdictional findings for subs tantial evidence. [Citation. ] We consider the entire record, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court’s findings and affirming the order even if other evidence supp orts a different finding. [Citation.] We do not consider the credibility of witnesses or re weigh the evidence. [C itation.] Substantial evidence does not mean ‘any evidence,’ however, and we u ltimately consider whether a
reasonable trier of fact would make the cha llenged ruling in light of the entire record. [Citation.] The parent has the burden on appeal of showing there is insuffi cient evidence4 to support the juvenile court’s order.” ( In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128, 137-138.) Overwhelming evidence suppor ted jurisdiction. Mother and father either knew or should have known that gang graffiti was written and numerous weapons . . . were kept in their small apartment in the rooms where two of their mi nor children slept. Two of the guns were loaded. There was a substantial ri sk the children would su ffer harm as a result of the parent’s failure to adeq uately supervise the children by allowing them to reside in a room with loaded firearms including an a ssault weapon. The ch ildren or their adult siblings could have used the weapons in the vicin ity of the children—e ither intentionally or accidentally. Moreover, even though the weapons had been re moved from the home, the adult siblings had been re leased from custody and jurisdiction was warranted to keep them out of the family home, as that was the only way to keep the children safe. Father’s numerous arguments on appeal ignore the appropr iate standard of review. Father’s argument that “the parents had no knowledge of the weap ons in the household” ignores the court’s finding that the parents ha d knowledge. Moreover, father should have known that an assault weapon and other firearms were being stored in his home. Father’s
claim that “there was no eviden ce presented that there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious physical harm or illnes s because older, adult, siblings were no longer in the home” ignores the court’s findi ng that jurisdiction was necessary to keep the older siblings out of the home. Father also argues that ther e was no risk to his children because they we re not toddlers. Contrary to hi s contention, there was a risk one of the children could have found the weapon and discharged it. There was also a risk that one of the adult siblings could have use the loaded weapon in the home around the
children. Finally, father’s reliance on In re B.T. (2011) 193 Cal.A pp.4th 685, 687 ( B.T. ) is misplaced. In that case, the mother had a child with a mino r, and their child was removed from mother’s custody. ( Id . at p. 691.) The juvenile cour t determined mother had a lack of judgment and poor impulse control representing a danger to her infant. ( Ibid .) The appellate court reversed, reasoning that the re cord showed that moth er was “a loving and5 experienced mother, well able to take proper care of a small child.” ( Id. at p. 693.) The appellate court found the juvenile court fa iled to focus on the ri sk to the child. ( Ibid .) The mother’s lapse in judgment had occurred before the child was even born and there
was no evidence that the la pse in judgment was likel y to harm the child. ( Ibid .)
In contrast to B.T ., here mother and father’s failu re to protect the children was likely to cause harm to them as the loaded firearm could have been used around the
children. The record did no t show mother and father we re well able to care for the children. To the contrary, they i gnored a grave risk to the children. 2. The Court’s Dispositional Order Was Proper Father also challenges the dispositional order, arguing the juvenile court should
not have ordered him to attend a parenting class. We review the disposition or der for substantial evidence ( In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216) and conclude substan tial evidence supported the
court’s determination that father should attend a parenting class. Father needed to learn to protect his children from th eir adult siblings who were gang members and jeopardized the safety of the children by br inging loaded firearms into the family ho me. To the extent father argues no relevant counseling group exis ted, he fails to cite to any evidence to support his contention and we decline to speculate.
DISPOSITION The jurisdictional and dispos itional orders are affirmed.

FLIER, J.
WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. RUBIN, J.