DISCUSSION

J.U. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering $3,200 restitution without an adequate factual basis of need. (Luis M. v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 300, 309.) She acknowledges that the Board’s payment of $3,200 to Mother is prima facie evidence supporting the award, but asserts that she established that the award lacked evidentiary support. (In re S.E. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 795, 804-805.) J.U. points out that Mother initially requested only $765 lost wages from the Board. Section 730.6 requires a minor who becomes a section 602 ward to pay restitution to a victim who incurs economic losses as a result of the ward’s conduct. (Id., subd. (a)(1), (2)(B).) The juvenile court shall determine the amount of restitution. (Id., subd. (h).) The losses incurred must be a proximate result of the minor’s delinquent conduct to be recoverable. (In re S.E., supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at pp. 804-805.) For restitution purposes, a “victim” may include the parents of a crime victim at the time the crime was committed. (§ 730.6, subd. (j)(4)(A).) The standard of proof at a restitution hearing is preponderance of the evidence. (S.E., at p. 803.) A restitution order is subject to review pursuant to an abuse-of-discretion standard. (Id. at p. 804 [“ ‘No abuse of discretion will be found where there is a rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered’ ”].) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering J.U. to reimburse the Board $3,200 for Mother’s in-home services to C.J. The evidence, including all reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the restitution order. Mother completed time sheets under penalty of perjury for a two-month period for eight hours a day for in-home support services, apparently abandoning her earlier claim for lost wages. The Board awarded Mother $80

3 a day for a total of $3,200. It is a reasonable inference from the evidence as well as common sense that C.J. required assistance with the activities of daily living due to her two nasal surgeries and mental health issues. J.U. created C.J.’s medical problems and should not benefit because Mother holds a low-paying job that compensates her less than in-home supportive services. Moreover, the restitution award need not be exactly tailored to the victim’s losses. (In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

4 Arthur A. Garcia, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Michael J. Wise and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

5