The juvenile court did not err by sustaining a dependency petition where the parents did not want to reunify with the minor following a delinquency petition. Parents sought writ relief from the orders sustaining dependency jurisdiction over their 15-year-old daughter, contending that the minor should be a ward of the court under section 602. The parents had adopted the minor at age nine, and her behavior had deteriorated. She was defiant, truant, and stole from her parents and friends. After the minor poisoned the family dogs, the parents called police, and the minor spent two months in juvenile hall waiting a hearing on a charge of animal cruelty. Psych reports concluded that the minor had post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the abuse by her birth mother followed by failed adoptive placements. The psych report concluded that the minor was “salvageable” but that it would take a lot of work. The probation report prepared for the disposition hearing following the minor’s animal cruelty conviction stated that the parents wanted no relationship with the minor and were seeking to “reverse” the adoption. A report was filed with the juvenile court reflecting the conclusion that dependency status remained more appropriate than wardship. The juvenile court rejected the parents’ challenges to the report and sustained dependency jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the orders of the juvenile court. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s conclusion that the minor had been left without any provision for support (Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 300, subd. (g)).