What is the test for substantial evidence in a sexual assault case?

^2. While the substantial evidence standard typically poses the question, "Is there substantial evidence to support the finding sexual abuse occurred," in this case we are presented the opposite question"Is there substantial evidence to support the finding sexual abuse did not occur?" This is not a de novo review and we are not the trier of fact. We may have reached a different finding if we were sitting as the juvenile court in this case, but that is not the issue. Under the substantial evidence standard, we can only determine whether there is evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the molestation did not occur. (See People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 132 [if the evidence is open to two reasonable interpretations, then the appellate court cannot substitute its conclusions for that of the trier of fact].)

^3. While the record supports an affirmance of the juvenile court's ruling, our holding is not meant to affirm the juvenile court's approach to this case. The juvenile court's comments that the sexual abuse allegations were merely "he said, she said" and "ridiculous" are troublesome to this court. Many cases involve one witness's testimony contradicting another witness's testimony. A victim's testimony often lacks corroborating evidence in sexual assault cases. A lack of corroborating evidence does not necessarily mean an assault did not occur. (See People v. Gammage (1992) 2 Cal.4th 693, 700 [the testimony of a complaining witness in a sexual assault case does not need corroboration].) It is the juvenile court's job to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, not merely count the number of witnesses. (See People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 940 ["[T]he number of witnesses who have given testimony on a particular point is not the test for the truth of that point"].) Reducing a matter as serious as a sexual assault allegation to "he said, she said" and dismissing it on that basis is problematic. We would hope that in the future the juvenile court will provide a more thoughtful explanation of its reasoning.