In re N.R. CA5

Filed 11/2/26 In re N.R. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re N.R. et al., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F090966 SOCIAL SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. MJP019364) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION J.R., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Timothy A. Kams, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Fresno Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Regina A. Garza, County Counsel, and Christopher B. Dorian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  J.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders sustaining a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 and removing her now 15-year-old daughter, N.R. (daughter), from her custody. Mother, who waived reunification services concerning daughter, contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdiction findings as to her. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother is the sole adoptive parent of four children—three girls that include daughter and now 12-year-old A.R. and nearly five-year-old L.G., and one boy, now 13-year-old Jordan R. (collectively, the children).2 Mother, who had no prior child welfare services history or criminal record, had a 10-year relationship with her boyfriend, R.G. (boyfriend), who lived with mother and the children along with his and mother’s two biological children.3 The family came to the attention of the Madera County Department of Social Services/Child Welfare Services (department) on June 18, 2025, when the department received a report of suspected abuse. The department was advised that a section 300 hold may be placed on then 13-year-old daughter, and the suspect had been arrested. The department received a previous referral reporting that a perpetrator who was accused of collecting and selling pornography had a previous relationship with daughter, and he had taken a naked picture of her in the shower. The perpetrator was arrested in May 2025, after daughter reported the incident at school and law enforcement was contacted. The reporting party stated that mother was forcing daughter to meet with the perpetrator 1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. All further citations to an undesignated subdivision are to subdivisions of section 300. 2 Mother is the children’s paternal aunt, who adopted the children around 2019. 3 The biological children were not part of this dependency case and are not subjects of this appeal. 2. regarding the incident, but daughter was afraid of mother as she did not want to speak with the perpetrator. The social worker met with a detective, who advised that law enforcement placed a protective custody hold on daughter. The detective told the social worker that about three weeks ago, daughter disclosed that boyfriend had sexually assaulted her. Boyfriend was arrested and his cellphone was taken into evidence. Mother bailed him out of jail. Law enforcement subsequently discovered child pornography videos and photos of daughter on the cellphone. Boyfriend was rearrested, again posted bail, and reportedly returned to the family residence. Daughter told the detective she did not feel safe at home. The social worker interviewed daughter, who initially stated that she felt safe at home but when asked to rate how she felt at home on a scale of one to 10, where one was completely miserable and 10 was happy, daughter rated her feelings as a four. When asked why the number was so low, daughter responded that mother and boyfriend made her feel uncomfortable. The social worker spoke with mother over the phone and advised her of the protective hold. According to the social worker, mother became very defensive and stated daughter’s aunt, V.K. (aunt), “put her up to this.” Mother stated that daughter did not like living by mother’s strict rules and she believed daughter was rebelling and would rather live with aunt, where she could do what she wanted without accountability. Mother said she was at work and the children were with their paternal aunt, B.G. (paternal aunt). The social worker and sheriff’s deputies came to paternal aunt’s home on June 19, 2025. The deputies declined to place a hold on the siblings after mother, who was present at the home, told them she had not seen boyfriend since his arrest in May. The social worker spoke with mother, who said she and maternal grandmother talked to 3. daughter about the incident and daughter refused to go to counseling. Daughter told them boyfriend touched her over her clothes and recorded her while she showered. Mother believed daughter would rather stay with aunt because she could do what she wanted there. Mother added that her family was upset with mother because she refused to serve boyfriend with a protective order. Mother could not believe daughter would say she did not feel safe at home, as boyfriend was no longer in the home. While mother posted bail for boyfriend after his first arrest, she had not seen him since. Mother believed boyfriend’s mother bailed him out of jail after his second arrest, and he was staying with his mother. Mother said she was in the process of moving with boyfriend’s assistance, but he only came around when the children were not present, and he signed over custody of their biological children. A child and family team meeting was held on June 20, 2025. Mother’s identified strengths included that she was a registered nurse, owned a home, had daycare support for the children, she advocated for them at school, and she was protective and offered to be protective of the children. Identified concerns included that boyfriend abused daughter, mother bailed boyfriend out of jail despite the allegations, and daughter felt unsafe going home and believed mother would be mad at her over the disclosure. The department recommended that daughter remain out of the home and a dependency petition filed with a plan of family reunification, while Jordan R., A.R., and L.G. (collectively, the siblings) would remain with mother. I. The Dependency Petition The department filed a dependency petition regarding the children on June 23, 2025. The petition alleged daughter came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d), while the siblings came within the provision of subdivision (j). The subdivision (b)(1), count alleged that daughter suffered, or there was a substantial risk she would suffer, serious physical harm or illness due to mother’s 4. failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect her, as: (1) daughter disclosed being sexually assaulted by boyfriend, who was arrested and bailed out of jail by mother; (2) sheriff’s deputies rearrested boyfriend when they discovered child pornography videos and photos on his cellphone; (3) boyfriend made bail again and was said to be at the family residence; (4) daughter stated she did not feel safe at home; and (5) the sheriff’s department placed a protective custody hold on daughter. The petition alleged mother knew or reasonably should have known of the abuse but failed to protect daughter by continuing to allow boyfriend in the home and have access to daughter. Two counts were alleged under subdivision (d): (1) that daughter was sexually abused, or there was a substantial risk she would be sexually abused, as defined in Penal Code, section 11165.1, subdivision (b), by a member of her household, based on the same facts alleged under the subdivision (b)(1) count; and (2) mother failed to adequately protect daughter from sexual abuse and knew or reasonably should have known daughter was in danger of sexual abuse, as she admitted she posted bail for boyfriend the first time he was arrested, she reported being aware of daughter’s disclosure and refused to serve boyfriend with a protective order, and she continued to allow boyfriend into the home where he had access to daughter. The siblings were alleged to come within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (j), as they were daughter’s siblings, who had been abused or neglected as defined in subdivisions (b) and (d), and there was a substantial risk the siblings would be abused or neglected as defined in those subdivisions. At the detention hearing on June 24, 2025, the juvenile court detained daughter from mother, while the siblings were not detained and remained in mother’s custody. II. The Department’s Reports for the Jurisdiction Hearing The department filed a jurisdiction report on July 7, 2025, and an addendum report on July 22, 2025. The department recommended that the juvenile court sustain the 5. petition’s allegations and set a disposition hearing. Daughter had been placed with a maternal relative while the siblings remained in mother’s care. The report cited the police report from May 30, 2025, when a sheriff’s deputy contacted a school counselor who advised that daughter told her she had been sexually abused by mother’s boyfriend since October 2024. Daughter told the counselor that mother regularly worked at night and boyfriend would sleep in daughter’s bed almost every night, boyfriend touched her “private parts” outside her clothing, and on at least two occasions daughter found boyfriend’s cellphone recording her while she was in the bathroom, most recently on May 29, 2025. A judge granted a no-contact, 100 yard stay- away emergency protective order, which ordered boyfriend to immediately move out of the residence and stay away from wherever daughter was living. The emergency protective order expired on June 6, 2025. The department opined mother failed to protect daughter from boyfriend because: (1) mother bailed boyfriend out of jail even though she was aware of the sexual abuse, although she claimed it was because she needed his help getting passports for their biological children as she had an out-of-country trip planned; (2) mother displaced the children by having them stay at family members’ homes so boyfriend could be bailed out of jail; and (3) by bailing boyfriend out of jail, mother failed to emotionally support daughter as a victim of sexual assault. Mother’s failure to protect daughter and provide her with emotional support placed daughter and the siblings at risk of emotional and physical harm while in mother’s care; therefore, daughter could not be safely returned to mother’s care and the siblings required court and department supervision and monitoring. The department was concerned that boyfriend was living in the home, as the emergency protective order had expired and no criminal protective order had been issued. During a social worker’s visit to mother’s home, mother told the social worker she did not extend the restraining order because of their biological children. Mother reported that 6. boyfriend was not in the home and was no longer allowed there, and she was upset with boyfriend due to his actions. She was willing to get a peaceful contact restraining order which would allow boyfriend to have peaceful contact with his children but would restrain him from her adopted children. The social worker spoke with mother’s biological children and two of her adopted children, who denied that boyfriend had been in the home. One of the biological children reported that mother took the biological children to see their father, but he did not come to the home. Mother was seeking a restraining order against aunt and did not want daughter placed with her because aunt was not supportive of mother and the children, and mother did not want aunt to have contact with her family. Mother believed daughter liked to be with aunt because aunt did not have rules for her own children. Mother was very upset with what boyfriend did and she never thought he was capable “of doing something like this.” Mother loved daughter and would not do anything to put her in harm’s way. III. The Jurisdiction Hearing At the jurisdiction hearing on July 31, 2025, the department submitted on the detention, jurisdiction, and addendum reports, which were admitted into evidence. Mother testified on her own behalf and called the following witnesses: (1) the emergency response social worker; (2) boyfriend’s niece, B.G. (niece); and (3) maternal grandmother. The social worker testified he became involved in the case when daughter was placed on a protective custody hold because she expressed fear of returning home. During the social worker’s investigation, the social worker inspected the family’s residence and visited niece’s home and never encountered boyfriend at either location. The social worker did not initially interview the siblings, although he met with mother’s biological sons, who “did not disclose” to him. 7.  On cross-examination, the social worker testified the department’s concern centered on daughter’s fear of returning home while boyfriend had access to the family’s home. To his knowledge, mother had not sought a restraining order protecting the children from boyfriend. The social worker testified mother was aware of daughter’s allegations against boyfriend before the social worker interviewed her as she learned of the allegations when daughter first disclosed the abuse at school about three weeks before the department’s involvement. When the social worker interviewed mother on June 18, 2025, she was upset and the social worker thought mother believed the allegations. Mother thought aunt was a bad influence on daughter. The social worker was asked about mother’s statement in the department’s report that aunt “put [daughter] up to this.” The social worker explained the day before that interview, mother went to aunt’s house with law enforcement to try to retrieve daughter. The next day, aunt took daughter to disclose that she was fearful of returning home, which was when the protective hold was placed on her. Aunt refused to release daughter to mother because mother was going to take the children home and it was alleged that boyfriend was still in the home or was allowed access to it. The social worker testified the statement did not imply that mother believed aunt made daughter invent the allegations, but rather it concerned the reporting of the allegations to law enforcement. Niece and maternal grandmother testified they never observed boyfriend engage in inappropriate conduct toward daughter or the other children. Niece understood that after the arrests, boyfriend was living elsewhere and she believed mother accepted daughter’s allegations as true. Maternal grandmother understood mother first learned of the allegations after the school disclosure and testified boyfriend had no contact with the children after his arrests. 8.  Mother, who is daughter’s biological aunt and her adoptive mother, was a registered nurse and had been in a relationship with boyfriend for nearly 10 years. Between October 2024 and May 30, 2025, mother was off work due to a high-risk pregnancy. She moved to Redwood City in mid-January for the pregnancy and returned home on March 31, 2025. Between October 2024 and May 30, 2025, mother noticed a marked change in daughter’s behavior in school, which included being late for her classes and engaging in inappropriate behaviors which caused mother to have several conversations with daughter’s principal and teachers. Mother did not go through boyfriend’s phones, computers, or tablets, as she never felt a reason to, and she never read the contents of daughter’s journal. Mother claimed she did not know boyfriend was sexually abusing daughter or that he went into daughter’s bedroom at night until May 30, 2025, when the detectives told her of the alleged sexual assault. Mother never doubted daughter’s honesty or thought daughter was untruthful when she said boyfriend abused her. Mother used the couple’s joint funds to post bail for boyfriend, but she did not pick him up from jail and she believed he went to his parents’ house. The children had no contact with him that day. The second arrest occurred at a shipping store, in the presence of mother and their biological children. They were there to obtain passports for the biological children so mother and the biological children could go on a trip to Cancun the following December. Mother needed boyfriend to sign off on the passport applications. The adopted children were not present and according to mother, they had no idea she was in contact with boyfriend. Mother said boyfriend was willing to sign physical and legal custody of their biological children over to her, but “we haven’t gotten to that.” After learning of the allegations, mother did not allow boyfriend around the children, did not allow him to move in with her and had no plan for him to do so, and 9. never intended to force daughter to speak to him. Mother was never angry with daughter for disclosing the alleged abuse, and she believed she had been emotionally supportive of daughter, as she made daily contact with daughter when daughter was living with maternal grandmother, and she asked daughter if she wanted to go to counseling, but she declined. Mother took daughter to speak with the police after boyfriend was arrested, and she validated daughter’s disclosure at the child and family team meeting. Mother did not obtain a restraining order against boyfriend after his first arrest because he had not tried to contact the children or ask about the children or the case, but she would do so if boyfriend tried to contact or come near the children, and they shared two children. Mother testified about needing to obtain the passports and explained “[t]here are things that him and I have to get together” and they “have to resolve some things together whether I like it or anybody likes it.” Mother filed a petition for a restraining order against aunt because she took daughter without anyone’s consent and aunt had been harassing her family for over a year. Mother denied that boyfriend still came around her house and explained that he assisted with her move by coming to the old house so he could move his things out. Mother acknowledged boyfriend had not signed over custody of their biological children, stating they had not “gotten around to it after the second arrest.” Mother had not spoken with daughter since June 17 and had not asked her whether she wanted a restraining order against boyfriend. Mother checked in daily with daughter to see how she was doing and if she needed anything, and with maternal grandmother to see if daughter had told her anything. Mother asserted that daughter “never had a problem” until aunt picked daughter up without anyone’s consent or knowledge. Mother denied that she forced daughter to speak to boyfriend. Mother had not spoken with her other daughters about whether boyfriend did anything inappropriate with them and had not received information on whether boyfriend 10. had photos of the other children. Detectives told her there were only images and videos of daughter, and mother should not interfere with the criminal case against boyfriend. Mother had occasional phone contact with boyfriend “for our children,” but she did not talk to him about the ongoing criminal investigation or the dependency case. Mother maintained cameras throughout the home, including the bedroom daughter shared with her siblings, that she used to check on the children when she was away from home. She checked the cameras regularly, but not late at night when the children were sleeping. At the close of evidence, mother’s counsel argued the department failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that mother knew or reasonably should have known that daughter was in danger of sexual abuse, that she failed to protect daughter, or that she allowed boyfriend to continue to have access to daughter. Counsel further argued the department had not shown that the siblings were at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. Rather, counsel argued, mother had demonstrated her ability to supervise and protect the children. County counsel asserted this case arose when daughter expressed fear of returning home and mother seemed to underappreciate, if not question, whether daughter’s fear was legitimate. County counsel asserted daughter continued to see mother support and interact with daughter’s attacker and watch her bail him out of jail, which made daughter less safe, and while he and mother had children in common, mother did not seem to consider the impact on daughter’s emotional well-being and psychological stability when she continued to engage with boyfriend. Moreover, mother, who knew how to obtain a restraining order, failed to obtain one against boyfriend, which could have made daughter safer and given her some peace of mind. County counsel believed the department met its burden, and the petition should be sustained. Minor’s counsel believed the allegation of failure to protect had been met because mother admitted bailing boyfriend out of jail and while mother stated it was because she 11. needed him to get passports for their biological children, that did not “hold water” as they did not seek the passports for “quite a while after that bail took place.” Minor’s counsel argued daughter would be fearful of living at home, as mother bailed out her perpetrator and she had no reason to believe she would be protected. Minor’s counsel believed the section 300, subdivision (d) allegations, particularly regarding boyfriend, had been proven as daughter naturally would not feel safe at home and for mother to discount her fear showed mother “just doesn’t get it.” Minor’s counsel further believed the subdivision (j) allegation should be sustained as there were other girls in the home who were only a few years younger than daughter, and if mother was not concerned about protecting daughter’s emotional well-being, he was concerned that she would do the same for the other children. In issuing its ruling, the juvenile court observed mother appeared to be trying to balance her relationships with her daughter and her boyfriend. The court noted the department’s burden was slight, and under the circumstances of the case, it was clear that mother failed to protect daughter’s emotional or psychological welfare, as she bailed out boyfriend, she failed to get a criminal protective order, she did not inquire of the other girls whether anything happened to them, and she allowed her biological children to have contact with boyfriend, which would have a psychological impact on daughter. The court rejected mother’s rationale for not getting a protective order, namely, that boyfriend was not coming to the house, as without an order boyfriend could show up at any time. The court agreed with the department and sustained the petition’s allegations as having been proven and set a disposition hearing for the children. IV. The Disposition Hearings The department initially recommended that mother be given family reunification services for daughter and family maintenance services for the siblings. At the disposition hearing held on September 9, 2025, county counsel informed the court that mother 12. intended to submit a waiver of reunification services as to daughter, which would result in a bypass of services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(14) and require new findings and orders. Consequently, the juvenile court continued daughter’s disposition hearing and proceeded with disposition as to the siblings. The juvenile court adopted the department’s recommendation as to the siblings and set a review hearing regarding the siblings. Mother subsequently filed an executed waiver of reunification services form in daughter’s case, in which she declared that she did not wish to receive services of any kind and did not wish to reunify with the child or have the child placed in her custody. At the continued hearing on September 15, 2025, the juvenile court addressed mother’s waiver of reunification services. Mother confirmed she executed the waiver after consulting with her attorney. The court advised mother that by waiving reunification services, the court would select a permanent plan for daughter and could terminate parental rights. Mother indicated she understood. The court accepted mother’s waiver as knowing and voluntary, but continued disposition to allow the department to follow up on claims of possible Indian heritage as to daughter.4 The disposition hearing as to daughter was continued several times and ultimately held on December 16, 2025. Mother was not present. The juvenile court adopted the modified disposition recommendations regarding bypass of reunification services and set a case plan review hearing for January 12, 2026, and a section 366.3 review hearing for May 28, 2026. The findings and orders included removing daughter from mother’s physical custody, denying mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision 4 The department subsequently made inquiries of identified Indian tribes and received responses from the tribes that showed daughter was not an Indian child. At a hearing on December 4, 2025, the juvenile court found the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to daughter based on this information. 13. (b)(14), and having daughter remain in foster care with a permanent plan goal of legal guardianship.5 DISCUSSION The only issue mother raises in this appeal is whether the jurisdiction findings as to daughter under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d) are supported by substantial evidence.6 Mother argues the evidence is insufficient to support these findings as to daughter because the department failed to prove she knew or should have known of daughter’s abuse or that she failed to protect daughter, and there was no evidence that there was a risk of harm to daughter when the allegations were adjudicated. She asks us to reverse the jurisdiction findings and instruct the juvenile court to dismiss the petition. I. Legal Principles “The Department has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [daughter was a dependent] of the court under section 300.” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).) “ ‘In reviewing the jurisdictional findings … we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light 5 Mother separately appealed from the siblings’ cases and daughter’s case, with the notice of appeal in the siblings’ cases filed on September 19, 2025, and the notice of appeal in daughter’s case filed on December 29, 2025. The cases were assigned case Nos. F090482 and F090966, respectively. At mother’s request, we ordered the two appeals consolidated under case No. F090482 on February 2, 2026. We subsequently informed the parties that we were considering deconsolidating the two appeals. In supplemental letter briefs, the parties agreed that deconsolidation was appropriate and we issued an order deconsolidating the appeals. 6 In her opening brief, mother alternatively argued that there was insufficient evidence to support removing daughter from mother’s custody and asked that the disposition orders be reversed and daughter placed with her on family maintenance. After the department asserted in its brief that mother was barred from challenging the disposition orders as she waived reunification services, mother withdrew this argument. 14. most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.’ ” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 (R.T.).) “ ‘Substantial evidence is evidence that is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value”; such that a reasonable trier of fact could make such findings.’ ” (In re G.Z. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 857, 876 (G.Z.).) ‘Substantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence; a decision supported by a ‘ “mere scintilla of evidence” ’ need not be affirmed on appeal. [Citation.] Further, “[w]hile substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be “a product of logic and reason” and “must rest on the evidence.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “ ‘ “[I]nferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding [citations].” [Citation.] “The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole record.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046, italics omitted; accord, In re B.D. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 315, 323–324.) Under section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A), the juvenile court has jurisdiction based on failure to protect when: “[T]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of … : [¶] (A) The failure or inability of the child’s parent … to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A)). “[A] parent’s conduct—short of actually creating the danger a child faces—may still satisfy the standard required under the first clause of section 300[, subdivision] (b)(1).” (R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.) “A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires [the department] to demonstrate the following three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) neglectful conduct, failure, or inability by the parent; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. [Citation.] While evidence of past conduct may be probative of current conditions, the 15. question under section 300 is whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the child to the defined risk of harm. Previous acts of neglect alone do not establish a substantial risk of future harm; there must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe they will reoccur.” (G.Z., supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 877.) Section 300, subdivision (d), provides for dependency jurisdiction over a child when either “[t]he child has been sexually abused, or there is a substantial risk that the child will be sexually abused … by [the child’s] parent or guardian or a member of the [child’s] household.” The juvenile court may also exercise jurisdiction under subdivision (d) if “the parent or guardian has failed to adequately protect the child from sexual abuse when the parent or guardian knew or reasonably should have known that the child was in danger of sexual abuse.” (Ibid.) For purposes of this subdivision, “sexual abuse” is defined by Penal Code, section 11165.1, which includes rape, statutory rape, lewd and lascivious acts upon a child, and child molestation. (§ 300, subd. (d); Pen. Code, § 11165.1, subds. (a) & (b).) Unlike subdivision (b), jurisdiction under subdivision (d) does not require a finding of current risk at the time of adjudication. (In re Carlos T. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 795, 803 (Carlos T.).) “ ‘The parent has the burden on appeal of showing there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s order.’ ” (In re E.G. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 707, 721.) “ ‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.’ ” (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) 16.  A. Analysis The petition’s allegations as to daughter were based on sexual abuse by boyfriend. Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), however, requires proof of an additional element that jurisdiction under subdivision (d) does not – namely a current risk of harm. We therefore focus on subdivision (d). The sustained section 300, subdivision (d) count included two parts. First, the juvenile court found boyfriend sexually abused daughter. Second, the court found mother failed to protect daughter from sexual abuse and knew or reasonably should have known daughter was in danger of sexual abuse. We need only focus on the first part of the subdivision (d) count, as it is undisputed that boyfriend’s acts of sexually touching daughter over her clothes and taking sexually exploitative videos and photos of daughter constituted sexual abuse. It also is undisputed that boyfriend was a member of daughter’s household at the time. It necessarily follows that the first allegation was true and there was jurisdiction under subdivision (d). Jurisdiction exists without regard to whether mother failed to protect daughter or knew or should have known daughter was in danger of sexual abuse. Mother recognizes that a finding of current risk of harm is not required under section 300, subdivision (d) and is applicable only to subdivisions (b) and (j), as the appellate court found in Carlos T., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 802–803. She nevertheless attempts to distinguish Carlos T., pointing out that in that case, the appellate court determined substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that the child was a dependent child under subdivision (d) based on the father’s sexual abuse of the child and mother’s failure to protect, as it was reasonable to infer that the mother should have suspected the father was sexually abusing the child based on a prior finding that the father sexually abused another child. (Carlos T., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 805.) She contrasts this with the evidence in the present case, which she argues shows that she 17. neither knew nor reasonably should have known that daughter was in danger of sexual abuse. Mother, however, ignores the first prong of section 300, subdivision (d), which does not require a finding that she knew or should have known of daughter’s abuse. Rather, jurisdiction may be taken based solely on the undisputed evidence that boyfriend was a household member who sexually abused daughter. As the appellate court recognized in Carlos T., when there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction under the first prong of subdivision (d) – that the child “ ‘has been sexually abused’ ” – “there is no need to discuss whether there was sufficient evidence to support jurisdiction under the alternative ‘substantial risk’ of abuse prong of subdivision (d).” (Carlos T., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 804.) While we need not reach the second part of the section 300, subdivision (d) count—that mother knew or reasonably should have known of the sexual abuse and failed to protect daughter—there is substantial evidence to support jurisdiction on that basis. It is undisputed that mother learned daughter was sexually abused when daughter reported the abuse to school officials on May 30, 2025, and the department does not contend that mother reasonably should have known of the abuse. The issue is whether there is substantial evidence that mother failed to protect daughter after that date. The evidence showed that after daughter disclosed the abuse and boyfriend was arrested, mother bailed him out of jail, ostensibly so she could get his help in obtaining passports for their biological children. While boyfriend was living elsewhere and there was no evidence that boyfriend came to the family’s home, mother stayed in contact with him. Mother was not truthful about these contacts when the department became involved in the case, as she told the social worker after her boyfriend’s second arrest in June that she had not seen boyfriend since May, even though she was at the shipping store with boyfriend and their biological children when he was arrested the second time. Even after 18. daughter reported she was afraid while living with mother and boyfriend, mother failed to obtain a restraining order to protect daughter. Although mother stated she believed daughter’s report of abuse, she did not believe that daughter’s fear was actual or reasonable. Rather, she blamed aunt for putting daughter “up to” expressing fear of being at home and believed daughter only claimed she was afraid so she could live with aunt. Based on this evidence, the juvenile court reasonably could find that mother failed to protect daughter from boyfriend after daughter first disclosed the abuse. While mother claimed she believed daughter’s allegations, her actions showed that she did little to address daughter’s fears other than to have boyfriend move out of the home. Her desire to maintain contact with boyfriend, even if for her biological children’s benefit, placed daughter at risk of further contact with boyfriend. Mother asserts she stood by daughter, but she abandoned her support once daughter reported she did not feel safe at home. Mother further asserts she fashioned a plan without boyfriend, but she continued to include him in her life by allowing contact with and custodial rights over their biological children and by not obtaining a restraining order. Mother compares her case to In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, which reversed a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b) based on a single incident of drunk driving with children in the car, where there was no evidence from which to infer there was substantial risk that such behavior would recur. (In re J.N., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1014–1016, 1026.) As noted above, however, findings under subdivision (d) do not require a current risk of harm. (In re Carlos T., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 803.) Rather, the issue is whether mother failed to protect daughter after