D.M.

D.M. (father) and L.M. (mother) (collectively, petitioners or parents) seek writ relief from the order of the juvenile court sustaining dependency jurisdiction over their now 15-year-old adopted daughter, C.M. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (g); all further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Parents do not wish to reunify with C.M.; rather, the gist of their position is that C.M. should be a ward of the court instead of a dependent so they can be spared the asserted stigma of dependency proceedings. Counsel for the minor opposes the writ petition. For the reasons we explain below, petitioners’ challenges are without merit, and we therefore affirm the order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over C.M.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGRÓUND

Consistent with the standard of review, we set out the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order. (See Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 229 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 113 P.3d 1159 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 364, p. 414 [“ ‘All of the evidence most favorable to the respondent must be accepted as true, and that unfavorable discarded as not having…