In re Randy S. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 400 upheld the juvenile court's finding that an 11-year-old boy violated Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The minor's stepmother found him in the shower with his two-year-old stepsister with the door locked. She told him to open the door, and the minor and the girl came out of the bathroom. The girl was naked but not crying or wet. Ten minutes later, the stepmother saw the girl leaving the bathroom again, but this time she was crying and wet. The minor left for school, and the stepmother later noticed the girl's vaginal area was red and irritated. She asked what happened and the girl replied the minor had hurt her and pointed to her vaginal area. When the stepmother confronted the minor, he said that he hoped she didn't think he sexually abused the girl. She replied that something was wrong and the girl was going to the hospital, and an examination would show "'traces'" of him if his body or fingers had been inside her. The minor replied that he didn't want to go to the hospital because they would find traces of him. However, he claimed he was just trying to wash the soap off her body. He later denied that he touched the girl, but the stepmother again confronted him and demanded the truth. The minor said he put his fingers inside his stepsister and he did not know why. When he was questioned by law enforcement officers, however, the minor denied that he touched the girl and claimed she had slapped her vaginal area and put carpet fibers inside her own body. (Id. at pp. 403-404.) In Randy S., the minor relied on Jerry M. and argued there was insufficient evidence to show he intended to arouse his own sexual desire. The minor claimed he was only 11 years old at the time, he was prepubescent, and there was a lack of evidence of sexual arousal. However, the court noted that "while it is reasonable to assume that if a young child is incapable of experiencing sexual arousal, the child would not intend to arouse his own sexual desires, it is likewise reasonable to assume that when a young child begins to experiment in sexual arousal, the child can harbor an intent to arouse his own sexual desires." (In re Randy S., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 406, ) Randy S. also noted the incident was done in a clandestine manner, while the minor was alone with the girl and the bathroom door was closed. Such conduct clearly showed he was trying to "keep the nature of his activities hidden" from the stepmother. (Ibid.) Randy S. further noted the minor changed his story of what happened many times "in an attempt to avoid being caught. First, he admitted touching the girl. Then he denied touching her. Then he returned to his original story. And finally, he concocted a story that the girl had slapped herself until she was red and stuffed carpet fibers into her vagina." (Ibid.) Randy S. also addressed the minor's argument that given his young age, he had not reached puberty and his age should trump the other factors which must be considered in determining whether the touching was sexually motivated. (In re Randy S., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) "... We reject his suggestion. The minor knew he could be in trouble for sexually abusing the girl. He had gone into the bathroom with the girl on at least one occasion and locking the door, he placed his fingers in her vagina, and then he attempted to evade the consequences of his actions. Therefore, we are convinced that the circumstances surrounding the minor's actions demonstrate that he harbored the requisite intent to arouse his own sexual desires through the use of the girl. Although he may only have been experimenting sexually, his actions clearly evidenced an intent to sexually stimulate himself. We are mindful of the words of our high court, 'The circumstances of the touching remain highly relevant to a section 288 violation. The trier of fact must find a union of act and sexual intent , and such intent must be inferred from all the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (In re Randy S., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pp. 407-408, ) Finally, Randy S. noted that although the evidence showed the minor was a troubled youth who had attention deficit disorder and had previously exhibited hostility toward his stepsister, "we are not convinced that this evidence demonstrates that the minor's inappropriate touching of the girl was nothing more than a continuation of his hostility towards her." (In re Randy S., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.)