In re Michael C. CA2/2

DISCUSSION

I. The Jurisdiction Order

A court may assert jurisdiction over a child when that child “has suffered, or [when] there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)1 We must affirm a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a child if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 438; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [“‘“We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.’””].) Father argues that the evidence presented as to each allegation was not substantial. More specifically, Father contends that the Department did not establish that he poses a substantial risk of present harm to his children. He relies upon In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010. In re J.N. held that a “single episode of [past] parental conduct”-- in that case, one incident of driving under the influence of alcohol while children were in…