In People v. Perez (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1462, numerous bindles of heroin and two loaded syringes were found in the defendant's house where he was living with his sister, his niece, and her son. (Perez, at p. 1466.) His niece's four-year-old daughter slept at the house a couple of nights per month. (Ibid.) The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that he had care or custody of his grand niece within the meaning of section Penal Code 273a. The defendant was convicted of offenses including child endangerment (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (b)) after officers executing a search warrant found heroin belonging to him in various unsecured locations in the home of his sister, Delgado, where he resided. Delgado's daughter and 15-year-old grandson also lived in the home, and Delgado's four-year-old granddaughter, S.F., spent a couple of nights per month there. Perez argued that there was insufficient evidence he had care or custody of S.F. to support his conviction of child endangerment. S.F. testified that Perez was at the residence all the time when she was there and babysat her "one day." She called him "'Daddy Joe,' " ate meals with him, and visited his parrot. Delgado and her daughter testified that Perez was not the child's caretaker and was never required to babysit for her. (Id. at pp. 1466-1467, 1471.) Perez rejected the argument that Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (b), "was intended to apply only to 'caretakers' whose role vis-a-vis the child is akin to parents, guardians, and babysitters," holding that the "language of the statute clearly covers not only parents, guardians, and babysitters, but also individuals who do not necessarily have as substantial a relationship to a child as a parent, guardian, and/or babysitter, but who nevertheless have been entrusted with the care of a child, even for a relatively short period of time." (Perez, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1469.) In Perez, the evidence supported the jury's verdict in that it showed Perez "was much more than an acquaintance who had only minimal contact with S.F. in the home every now and then." (Perez, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1471.) The court noted S.F.'s testimony about her contact with Perez as well as the fact that Perez did not have a job and was at the house most of the time, including during the day when S.F.'s mother worked and her grandmother slept, which permitted a reasonable inference that there were times S.F. was left with Perez as the only adult in the house who was not asleep and, therefore, that he was, as a factual matter, caring for the child. (Ibid.) "Whether one is 'caring' for a child is determined not by agreement, but instead, as a matter of fact based upon the surrounding circumstances." (Ibid.) The court explained that although Delgado and her daughter were S.F.'s primary caretakers, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that "Perez was one of several adults in the home who had the care or custody of S.F." (Id. at p. 1472.) The Perez court rejected his contention, stating that "the language of the statute clearly covers not only parents, guardians, and babysitters, but also individuals who do not necessarily have as substantial a relationship to a child as a parent, guardian, and/or babysitter, but who nevertheless have been entrusted with the care of a child, even for a relatively short period of time." (Perez, at p. 1469.) The Perez court acknowledged that the defendants in People v. Cochran (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 826, People v. Culuko (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 307, and Orlina v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 258, had more substantial relationships to their victims than the defendant had. (Perez, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1469-1470.) However, the court reasoned that those cases did not require a finding that "the phrase 'having the care or custody of a child' ( 273a) is intended to apply only to individuals whose relationship with the victim child is as substantial as the relationship between the defendant and victims in those cases . . ., and the language of the statute does not suggest care or custody may not be premised on a less substantial relationship than that between a parent or guardian and a child." (Perez, at p. 1470.) Thus, the court rejected the defendant's claim that a conviction under Penal Code section 273a required a "relationship akin to that of a parent, guardian, or babysitter . . . ." (Perez, at p. 1471.) The Perez court further found that there was substantial evidence that the defendant had the "care or custody" of his grand niece, because "there were times when Perez was the only adult in the house who was not asleep while the child was present in the home, and thus, that the child was left in his care on such occasions." (Ibid.)