There was sufficient evidence of sexual abuse of the minors where their parents took photographs depicting the minors and their parents in nude non-sexual positions. The court was entitled to conclude that the parents took the photographs to arouse themselves or others, particularly since they were on the same roll of film as pictures of mother and a “semi-aroused” father, which the parents admitted taking for their sexual content. The photographs’ depiction of the children engaged in “sexual conduct” as defined by Penal Code section 311.4, subdivision (d)(1) – regardless of whether the photographs were obscene – justified the court’s exercise of jurisdiction.