In re S.S. CA2/4

background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 alleged inappropriate touching and masturbation; they do not challenge the court’s ruling as to substance abuse or domestic violence. Mother filed a respondent’s brief, asserting that the juvenile court’s ruling should be affirmed. DCFS did not file a brief. At the jurisdiction hearing, DCFS had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that S. was a person described by section 300. (§ 355, subd. (a); In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) The juvenile court held that DCFS did not meet this burden. When the trier of fact finds that the party with the burden of proof did not carry its burden, the question on appeal is whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law. (In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 111.) “Specifically, the question [is]…