Prior incidents of abuse were sufficient to warrant dependency jurisdiction. Father appealed the order sustaining a juvenile dependency petition, arguing that the court erred in concluding that one incident of sexual abuse six years before the petition was filed and one incident of physical abuse two years before the petition showed a current risk of harm to the minor. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. The court may exercise dependency jurisdiction based on findings of prior instances of serious harm or abuse. There was no question that father’s prior abuse resulted in serious injury and harm. The prior abuse by itself was sufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction. Further, minor’s visits to father were sporadic, and his opportunities to inflict harm had been limited. Given the totality of the circumstances, the lower court’s findings that the minor was at substantial risk of harm was not unreasonable and did not lack evidentiary support.