Father’s abuse of stepdaughter in front of son provided sufficient evidence for jurisdiction over the son. Minor son was declared a dependent based on findings that he was at substantial risk of sexual abuse by the father, who had sexually abused his older half sister in his presence. On appeal, father contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the order because the evidence that he molested a female child was insufficient to show he was likely to sexually abuse his own male child. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that there was evidence which established the correlation between sexual abuse of the stepdaughter and the minor, i.e. father’s acts with the minor such as bathing with him and kissing him on the mouth, and the fact that mother did not believe that the abuse had occurred. The court properly considered the totality of circumstances in making its finding. Further, sufficient evidence supported the court’s order removing the minor from mother because mother did not believe that the abuse had occurred, and had violated protective court orders involving contact with father. Mother needed to make progress before she could provide the minor with a safe home, and therefore substantial evidence supported the removal order.