1

Filed 7/18/24 In re S.R. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.11 15. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re S. R. et al. , Person s Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. J.R., Defendant and Appellant. E082812 (Super.Ct.No. DPRI2300275)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dorothy Mc Laughlin, Judge. Dismissed in part , r eversed in part , with directions. Tracy M. DeSoto, under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel , Teresa K.B. Beecham and Julie Jarvi , Deputy
Cou nty Counsel , for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

J. R. ( mother ) appeals fro m the juvenile court’s disposi tional findings and orders concerning two of her children. We dismiss as abandoned the appeal as to one of the
children because mother raises no arguments on appe al as to that child. With respect to th e other ch ild, m other challenges the sufficiency of t he evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings against h er under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision s (b)(1) and (j) (u nlabeled statutory references are to this code)

. Mother also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting removal of that child
and contend s that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering supervised
visitation. We agree that the jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial
evidence , and we accordingly reverse with directions.
BACKGROUND
I. Family b ackground
Mother ha s four minor children : S.R. ( female; born in November 2005) (hereafter daughter) , Dominic R. (male; born in June 2008), Brianna L. (female; born in 2014), and Ethan L. (male; born in 2015) (collectively, the chil dren) . (We refer to Brianna and Ethan collectively as “ the half siblings. ” ) In May 2023, mother and the children lived
with Brandon, who is the half siblings’ father. Mother and Brandon were engaged. Brian
W. is daughter ’s biological father, and Richard R. is Dominic’s biological father. The3

half siblings are not parties to this appeal , and mother does not make any arguments
related to daughter

. 1
II. D ependency history In January 2022, t he Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) received a referral concerning the family , alleg ing general neglect, sexual abuse, and at

- risk sibling abuse. Daughter was experiencing homicidal ideation and placed on a section 5 585 hold. 2 Daughter initially reported that while she was in the sixth grade Brandon “put his hands down her pants, groped her genitalia and attempted to pull down her pants while she was laying down.” Daughter suspected that mother knew what happened because mother advised daughter to wear clothing that covered her body. Daughter did not want to disclose what happened , because mother experienced stress

related seizures and relied on Brandon financially. Daughter later denied that she ha d been inappropriately touched by Brandon

. M other reported that she was not concerned about Brandon sexually abusing daughter , because they were never alone together

. Mother and daughter disclosed that an ex

boyfriend of daughter ’s raped daughter during the summer of 2021. Mother said that daughter was enrolled in services to address mental health concerns.

1 Daughter turned 18 years old the day after the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Mother ’s notice of appeal includes daughter , but m other does not make any argument in her brief s related to daughter. We therefore dismiss as abandoned m other’s appeal as to daughter

. ( In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

2 The record mistakenly describes the hold as a “ 5150 hold

. ” Section 5585 governs the 72

- hour mental health evaluation hold of a minor (§ 5585.20 ) , which daughter was in January 2022.4

Two months later, in March 2022, the Department received another referral , alleging physical abuse and concerns of at

- risk sibling abuse. Daughter reported that
mother hit daughter in the face and otherwise hit and kicked daughter several times. Daughter said that “the physical abuse ha[d] been continuous since she was 9 years old, and she was the only one physically abused.” Mother did not allow the social worker to speak with the other children and believed that the Department was lying about the new allegations. A law enforcement officer visited the residence and spoke with mother and daughter. Daughter denied that mothe r hit her in the face. In April 2022, the Department received an immediate response referral with
concerns of sexual abuse. Daughter was placed on a section 5 585 hold. Daughter cut her thigh with a razor blade , but t he cut was superficial. Daughter rep orted to someone that mother’s fiancé (Brandon) was inappropriately touching her and had touched her approximately 50 times since she was in the sixth grade. Daughter said that she previously lied to the social worker when she denied that Brandon touched her. Daughter
said that none of her half siblings was being abused. Mother refused to cooperate with the Department and did not allow the other children to be interviewed. Daughter spoke with a social worker and again denied the allegations

. Daughter
d id not understand why the report had been made. Daughter felt safe at home. Both
referrals were closed as unfounded.5

III. Present i nvestigation The family came to the attention of the Department again in May 2023. Daughter , who was then 17 years old, reported that Brandon sexually molested her

. It start ed when she was eight years old and continued until she was 14 years old. Daughter lied when she previously said that Brandon did not sexually abuse her. Daughter was ready to disclose
the truth

. A social worker visited the family’s home unannounced. Daughter was not home. The social worker spoke with mother and Brandon together and outside of the residence at their request. Mother and Brandon refused to allow the social worker to enter the
home or to speak with the children

. Mother reported that since the re ferrals in 2022 daughter had received some therapy

. The social worker asked law enforcement to perform a wellness ch eck on the
children , which law enforcement attempted

. Mother and Brandon brought the half siblings to the doorway but did not allow law enforcement to speak with them.
Two weeks after the initial referral , daughter texted the social worker that Brandon

s exually molested her over the course of six years until she was 14 years old

. An
informant reported that daughter had previously received behavioral health services but only attended three therapy sessions in February and March 2022 , because m other pulled daughter out of therapy.6

The social worker attempted to interview daughter at school, but daughter attended
school online. The social worker did interview Dominic and the half siblings at school.
Dominic reported that he had not been touched inappropriately , and he denied having any knowledge about his half siblings, including daughter , being touched inappropriately.
Dominic felt safe at home and reported that there was not any domestic violence at the
house

. Brianna understood what her pri vate parts were and denied that she had ever been touched there or that anyone had ever asked to touch her there. Brianna also d enied having any knowledge of any of her siblings being touched. Brianna felt safe at home.
Ethan denied that anyone had touc hed his private parts. In July 2023, daughter was admitted to Loma Linda Behavioral Medic ine Center (the behavioral center)

. Daughter had attempted to commit suicide

. Daughter disclosed
more details about the sexual ab use by Brandon , reporting that Brandon started touching her breasts when she was eight years old and digitally penetrating her when she was 11. Daughter also reported that mother verbally abused her from the ages of six through 14. Daughter reportedly attempted to commit suicide over 30 times “‘in relation to the abuse she ha[d] endured.’” The behavioral center’s medical staff did not believe that daughter had received proper psyc hiatric care , because daughter was not enrolled in long

- term outpatient treatment.
On the same day that d aughter was admitted to the behavioral center , mother called law enforcement to report that Brandon was missing

. Law enforcement found
Brandon’s car with duct tape around the exhaust pipe , plastic tubing routed into a rear7

window , and a letter ad dress ed t o Brianna inside of the car

. Mother discovered that
Brandon had purchased a one

- way ticket to Hawaii. Hawaiian law enforcement found Brandon at the airport and transported him to have his mental health evaluat ed

. Brandon
returned to California several days later

. In mid

- July 2023 , the Department received another referral from the b ehavioral

center alleging general neglect and sexual abuse of daughter. Daughter was enrolled in
the behavioral center’s partial hospitalization program. Daughter explained that she had attempted to commit suicide because Brandon moved in with the family again

. Mother had required Brandon to take a polygraph test, which he failed. Daughter surrepti ti ously

recor ded Brandon talking to her about that test and asking daughter to lie to mother and
tell mother that daughter “was manic.” Daughter overdosed after she recorded Brandon

. Daughter was staying with Dominic’s father, Richard.
Law enforcement conducted a forensic interview of daughter in late July 2023. Daugh ter said that when she was between eight and 15 years old Brandon touched her
breasts and vagina , kissed her on the lips , masturbated to her while she slept, and pressed his penis against her back. Daughter described one incident in which Brandon rubbed h er thigh and vagina while she was sleeping but stopped when daughter “ turned around and
she was able to move her sister, Brianna (approximately 5 years old) in front of her as a
means to block him.” Mother was present in the residence when Brandon touched daughter , but daughter said that mother was downstairs on her phone and was distracted.8

The interviewer asked daughter if she was “worried that something like this has happened to somebody else that you know with Brandon.” Daughter answered that she was worried about Brianna, because Brianna was eight years old, which was the age at which Brandon started sexually abusing daughter. Asked whether she was worried about anyone else, daughter replied, “ Ethan, but not too much because he’s a boy but I doubt it as well but I always have that worry.” Daughter explained that Ethan was one year younger than Brianna. Daughter was not worried about Brandon sexually abusing anyone else. In June 2023, daughter told Richard and his wi fe what happened to her. Richard helped daughter tell mother. Daughter wrote a note about what happened and showed it
to mother. Mother cried . She informed daughter that if daughter ’s account was truthful
then “‘you know we have to move, right?’” Daug hter felt that mother was mad at her
after the dis closure. A social worker spoke with daughter after the forensic interview. Daughter
reiterated that Brandon started molesting her when she was 8 years old , but she newly
disclosed that it continued “until present [when she was 1 7 years old], although more rarely now.” Daughter said that she had previously recanted the reports of abuse because
she did not want “‘to ruin’” mother’s life.
The social worker contacted mother , but m oth er refused to speak on the phone.
Mother did not allow the social worker to speak with the other children. Mother
confirmed that daughter was living with Richard

. Mother became upset and9

argumentative when the social worker asked to speak with the other children , and she did
not allow it.
The social worker spoke with Richard , who described maintaining an active parental relationship with daughter even though she was his step d aughter

. Richard cared
for daughter when she was a toddler. Richard had learn ed about the sexual abuse allegations about two months earlier. Daughter told Richard that she previously recanted allegations because she did not want the half siblings to grow up without a father.
In late July 2023 , the Department took protective custody of all four children pursuant to a warrant. The children were temporarily placed with Richard.
IV. The allegations and the initial hearing
In August 2023 , the Department filed a dependency petition as to all four children, with jurisdictional allegations against mother

. The petition alleged that all four children were at substantial risk of serious physical har m under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300 (§ 300(b)(1)) as follows: “The mother knew, or reasonably shou ld have known, her significant other, [Brandon] , sexually abused the child, [ daughter ], in the family home. Further, the mother has been unwilling to recognize the sexual abuse occurring in the home and failed to intervene and protect the children in the home.” With respect to daughter , the petition also contained additional allegations of emotional and sexual abuse under subdivisions ( c) and (d) of section 300

. As to Dominic and the half siblings, the petition also contained an allegation under subdivision (j) of section 300 (§ 300(j)) ,10

alleging that “ [t]he children’s half sibling , [daughter] , has been abused and/or neglected as defined in subdivision 300 (d) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and there is a substantial risk that these children will suffer similar harm .” At the initial hearing, t he juvenile court detained the children from mother

. As to Dominic, the court found that a prima facie showing had been made that he came within the court’s jurisdiction under subdivisions (b)(1) and (j) of section 300

. V. Jurisdiction and disposition The Department filed a jurisdiction and disposition report in August 2 023. A
social worker described interviews from that month with the children , Richard, and
mother. Dominic denied that he had been sexually abused and reported that he would tell Richard if anything happened

. Brianna, who was then nine years old, also denied that she had been sexually abused. Ethan is autistic and was unable to provide clear answers to most questions. Daughter stated that mother previously stopped daughter from attending therapy
because daughter “was disclosing too much information and [the Department] kept intruding.” Daughter had been hospitalized three times for having attempted suicide. Mother denied the allegations that Bra ndon had sexually abused daughter when
she was in mother’s care and custody or that mother had any knowledge of the abuse. Mother explained that daughter was mad because Brandon had thrown some of her food
away, so daughter went to Richard’s house, where s he wrote a letter describing the abuse.11

Mother read the letter and realized that there “were parts in the letter that did n ot even happen.” Mother searched daughter ’s computer and found that daughter was on a website in which other children were disclosing abuse they experienced

. Daughter also posted about abuse that she claimed to have experienced. Mother made daughter take a lie detector test, which mother said that daughter failed. Daughter told mother that she
lied in her posts about being abuse d because she wanted to relate to the other children
online

. Mother disagreed with the section 300(j) allegation that Dominic, Brianna , and
Ethan are at risk of “similar abuse” to the sexual abuse that daughter allegedly suffered,
which w as described in the allegation under section 300, subdivision (d) (§ 300(d)).
Mother said that she knew “nothing ha [d] happened to her children. She is always home and she is aware of everything that occurs in the home.” As ked about th e same allegation, Richard explained that daughter told him that she did not know whether her half siblings had been sexually abused . N o ne of the children disclosed anything to him. Daughter told Richard that Brandon bathed Brianna and Ethan. The court held the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing s in November 2023, starting two days before daughter ’s 18th birthday. The Depart ment filed an addendum report for the hearing

. In interviews for that report, Richard and daughter described an incident that occurred in early October 2023 . He was driving with all of the children in the car, and Brianna was on speaker with Brandon. Ri chard asked Brianna to12

end the call. Mother got on the phone and was angry. Mother said that she and Brandon could talk to their children on the phone whenever they wanted. Daughter informed mother that hearing Brandon’s voice triggered her. Mother res ponded, “ ‘ I can’t believe you would say that, I have rights as a parent and I can’t believe you would do this.’”
Richard ended the call. In late October, a social worker spoke with mother, who “stated that this whole case is based off of a lie from the investigating worker, and her children

are being emotionally abused by the Department. ” At the hearing, the court sustained the allegatio ns under subdivisions (b)(1) , (c) , and (d) of section 300 as to daughter. As to Dominic and the half siblings, the court sustained the allegations under section 300 (b)(1) and section 300 (j). The court removed
Dominic from mother , granted Richard sole phy sical and legal custody , ordered monitored visitation for mother, and closed Dominic’s case

. DISCUSSION Mother contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional
findi ngs as to Dominic under section 300 (b)(1) and section 300 (j)

. W e agree. Section 300 specifies the circumstances under which a juvenile court can assert dependency jurisdiction over a child. ( In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1420.) Under section 300(b)(1), the juvenile court may take jurisdiction over a child if the child has suffered or is at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of the parent’s failure or inability “to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (§ 300,13

subd. (b)(1)(A) (§ 300(b)(1)(A)) .) A jurisdictional finding under section 300(b)(1) (A) requires the Department to prove the following elements by a preponderance of the
evidence: “ (1) neglectful conduct, failure, or inability by the par ent; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or
illness. ” ( In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848.) The child must be subject to a
defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hear ing

. ( In re Roger S. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 572, 582.) But “ s ection 300 does not require that a child actually be abused or neglected before the juvenile court can assume jurisdiction.” ( In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 ( I.J. ) .)
S ection 300(j) allows the juvenile court to take jurisdiction over a child if that
“child [] has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i) [of section 300] , and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglec ted, as
defined in those subdivisions. ” Section 300(j) does not require that t he subdivision under which the sibling is at risk be the same subdivision under which the child described by
section 300(j) is at risk. ( I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 774

. ) Se ction 300(j) further
instructs : “ T he court shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court

co nsiders probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child. ” Section 300(j) affords the court “‘ greater latitude to exercise jurisdiction as to a child14

whose sibling has been found to have been abused than the court would have in th e absence of that circumstance. ’ ” ( I.J. , at p. 774.) In general , the more egregious the abuse experienced by the sibling, “ the more appropriate for the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over the siblings ” under section 300(j). ( I .J. , at p. 778.)

“‘ I n reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. ’” ( In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.) “‘In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inference s from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.’” ( Ibid. )
The record contains no evidence that Dominic was at substantial risk of physical
harm under section 300(b)(1). The record does not contain any evidence that mother’s
failure to intervene and protect daughter from being sexually abused by Brandon placed
Dominic at any risk of physical harm. There is no evidence that Brandon sexually abused
Dominic . Nor is there any evidence that Brandon ever physically harmed or was likely to physically harm Dominic in any w ay
. Dominic reported that he felt safe living with
mother and Brandon. It is not reasonable to infer from mother’s failure to protect daughter from being sexually abused by Brandon that Dominic was at risk of any physical harm, let alone a substantial ri sk.15

There also is no evidence in the record supporting the jurisdictional finding under section 300(j) as to Dominic

. Although section 300(j ) itsel f allows a juvenile court to
consider whether a child “ ‘ will be harmed under subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e) or (i) of section 300, notwithstanding which of those subdivisions describes the child ’ s sibling ’ ” ( I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 774) , the section 300(j) allegation in the petition in this case

was more specific . The allegation reads: “ The children’s half sibling, [ daughter ], has been abused and/or neglected as defined in subdivision 300 (d) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and there is substantial risk that these children will suffer similar
harm .” (Italics added.) The Department thus alleged that Dominic was at substantial risk of suffering from sexual abuse under section 300 (d) , similar to what daughter had experienced ; it did not allege that he was at risk of being harmed as described in subdivisions (a), (e), or (i) of section 300

. There is no evidence that at the time of the jurisdiction hearing Dominic was at risk of being sexually abused. Dominic was between five and six years old and residing
with Brandon and mother when Brandon started molesting daughter. There is no
evidence that Brandon ever touched Dominic inappropriately in the ensuing nine years, during which they continued to reside together

. Moreover, Brandon started sexually abusing daughter when she was ei ght years old , but Dominic was 15 years old when the jurisdiction hearing was held. He accordingly was not nearly as vulnerable as daughter

was when the molestation began. There also is no evidence that Brandon had any propensity to sexually abuse male c hild ren , particularly older teenage boys

. Moreover,16

daughter expressed concerns about Brandon sexually abusing the half siblings only. She did not express any like concern about Dominic. In sum, the record does not contain any evidence from which a reas onable inference can be drawn that at the time of the jurisdiction hearing there existed a substantial risk that 15

- year
- old Dominic would be sexually abused by Brandon. There accordingly was no evidence supporting the jurisdiction al allegation as to Dominic under section 300(j). The Department’s argument s to the contrary are unavailing . In arguing that substantial evidence supports the section 300(b)(1) finding, the Department focuses exclusively on the evidence that mother knew or should have known that Brandon was sexually abusing daughter. But the Department does not explain how that evidence
demonstrates that Dominic was at substantial risk of physical harm as a result of mother’s failure to protect daughter from sexual abuse.
To support th e contention that the true finding under section 300(j) is supported by
substantial evidence , the Department relies on I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th 766. In I.J. , t he father sexually abused and raped his 14

- year
- old d aughter , I.J., throughout the three years immediately preceding the jurisdiction hearing . ( Id. at p. 771.) I.J. had four younger siblings, including a younger sister, twin 12

- year
- old brothers, and a seven

- year
- old brother. ( Ibid. ) The dependency petition alleged that the fath er ’s sexual abuse of I.J. placed all of the children at risk of harm , and the petition contained allegations as to the siblings under subdivisions (b), (d), and (j) of section 300

. ( I.J. , at p. 771. ) The juvenile17

court sustained the allegation that “‘[t] he sexual abuse of [I.J.] by the father endangers [I.J. ’ s] physical health and safety and places the child and the child ’ s siblings .

. . at risk of physical harm, damage, danger, sexual abuse and failure to protect. ’ ” ( Ibid. ) There
was no evidence that the sons were sexually abused or otherwise mistreated , and the sons did not witness any of the abuse and were unaware of it until the dependency proceeding. ( Ibid. ) On appeal, the father argued that the evidence that he sexually abused I.J. did not support the juvenile court ’s assertion of jurisdiction over the sons . ( Id. at p. 772.) The Supreme Court rejected the father’s argument and concluded that substantial evidence supported the assertion of jurisdiction over the sons under section 300(j). 3 ( I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 772.) I.J. emphasized that section 300(j) did “‘ not state that its application is limited to the risk that the child will be abused or neglected as defined in the same subdivision that describes the abuse or neglect of t he sibling. Rather, subdivision (j) directs the trial court to consider whether there is a substantial risk that the child will be harmed under subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e) or (i) of section 300, notwithstanding which of those subdivisions describes the child ’ s sibling. ’ ” ( I.J. , at
p. 774 , i talics omitted.) Applying that directive, the Supreme Court found that the serious and prolonged nature of the father’s sexual abuse of I.J. coupled with the evidence that
the abuse occurred while the other children were living in the same home “ and could easily have learned of or even interrupted the abuse ” “support[ed] the juvenile court’s

3 Because the court found the section 300(j) allegation supported by substantial evidence, the court did not address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the other alleged grounds for jurisdiction. ( I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th at pp. 773

- 774.)18

finding that the risk of abuse was substantial as to all the children , ” including the sons

. ( Id. at p. 778.) I.J. assumed that the risk of sexual abuse was greater as to the younger daughter than as to the sons . ( Id. at p. 779.) The court nevertheless noted that it did “not

mean the risk to the sons is n onexistent or so insubstantial that the juvenile court may not take steps to protect the sons from that risk , ” especially given the severe and prolonged sibling abuse in that case. ( Id. at p. 780.)
I.J. cautioned that by upholding the assertion of jurisdi ction under section 300(j)
over the sons it was “ not holding that the juvenile court is compelled, as a matter of law, to assume jurisdiction over all the children whenever one child is sexually abused. ” ( I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 780.) I.J. emphasized that it was merely holding that “ the evidence in this case supports the juvenile court ’ s assertion of jurisdiction. ” ( Ibid. ) The Department’s reliance on I.J. is misplaced. I.J. is distinguishable from the present case in that Dominic was 15 years old at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. He
thus was several years older than the older sons in I.J

. ( I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 771.)
Given his age, Dominic was less vulnerable to sexual abuse than the sons in I.J. Moreover, the section 300(j) allegation in I.J. was not limited like the allegation
here. In I.J. , the juvenile court found that the father’s sexual abuse of his d aughter placed the siblings “ ‘ at risk of physical harm, damage, danger, sexual abuse and failure to protec t

. ’” ( I.J. , supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 771

. ) Thus , the juvenile court in I.J. could
consider whether there was a substantial risk that the siblings w ould be harmed under19

subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e) , or (i) of section 300 , not just whether the sibling s were at
substantial risk of sexual abuse under section 300 (d)

. ( I.J. , at p. 774.) T he Supreme
Court did not uphold the section 300(j) finding on the basis of risk that the siblings would
be sexually abused . ( I.J. , at p. 780.) Rather , in c oncluding that substantial evidence supported the finding, the Supreme Court noted that the sexual of abuse of the daughter placed the other children at risk because the other children were at home when the abuse
occurred and could have learned of or inter rupted the abuse. ( Id. at p. 778.) The harm
that the sons would have experienced by learning of the abuse would not constitute
sexual abuse as defined by section 300 (d)

. In contrast to the section 300(j) allegation in I.J. , the juvenile court in the present

case was limited to asserting jurisdiction over Dominic under section 300(j) if and only if
the court found that he was at substantial risk of sexual abuse . A nd a s we have explained, there is no evidence that 15

- year
- old Dominic was a t risk of being sexually
abused. In sum, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional finding s under section 300 (b)(1) and section 300 (j) against mother as to Dominic

. B ecause the jurisdictional finding s agai nst mother w ere the basis for removal of Dominic
from mother ’s custody at disposition, we must reverse the dispositional findings and
orders as well.20 DISPOSITION The appeal as to S.R. is dismissed as abandoned. The dispositional findings and
orders as to Dominic are reversed, and the true finding s on the jurisdictional allegation s as to Dominic under section 300(b)(1)(A) and section 300(j) are vacated with directions
to dismiss the petition as to Dominic

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENET REZ J. We concur:

CODRINGTON

Acting P. J.

FIELDS J.