What is the test for sustaining a child sexual assault conviction in a juvenile court?

The juvenile court, not the reviewing court, judges the credibility of the witnesses, resolves any conflicts in the testimony, weighs the evidence and draws factual inferences. "The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable." (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296.) For the reviewing court to reject the statements given by a witness whom the trial court has found credible, either they must be physically impossible or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. (People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 150.) When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts as found, a reviewing court cannot substitute its own deductions for those of the trier of fact. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-577.)