1 Filed 4/16/14 In re A.D. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

In re A.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. F.L., Defendant and Appellant. E059296 (Super.Ct.No. SWJ1300129) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Ri verside County. John M. Monterosso, Judge. Affirmed. Donna P. Chirco, under ap pointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Ju lie Koons Jarvi, De puty County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 F.L. (Mother) appeals from the jurisd iction/disposition hear ing involving her children, A.D. and M.D., during which the j uvenile court found the allegations in the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition 1 true, and ordered that they remain in out-of-home custody. Mother claims on appe al that (1) substantial evidence did not support the allegations in the section 300 petition; (2) the juve nile court erred by refusing to return A.D. and M.D. to her care during the reunification period; and (3) the visitation order was an improper delegation of authority.
I PROCEDURAL AND FA CTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Original Detention A report was received by the Department on February 19, 2013, that Mother had
been incarcerated on an immi gration hold in San Diego. 2 Mother’s boyfriend was no longer willing to take care of her children, A.D. who was 15 year s old, and M.D. who was 9 years old. There were no other fam ily members willing to take care of them. A.D. and M.D. both reported that there was no physical or sexual abuse occurring in the home but that they no longer wanted to live with Mother’s boy friend. Their father, Ad.D (Father), could not be located and was re ported to live in New York City. He had

1 All further statutory references ar e to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Mother was born in Senegal.3 not been a part of the family for several years. 3 A.D. and M.D. were placed in foster care on February 19, 2013. Several prior referrals where it was reporte d that Mother left A.D. and/or M.D. without supervision were unfounded. Visitati on could not be ordered at the time of the filing of the section 300 petition because Mother was incarcerated and Father’s whereabouts were unknown. On February 21, 2013, the Department filed a section 300 pe tition against Mother and Father alleging that they willfully or negligently failed to provide support and proper supervision to protect the safety of A.D. and M.D. A detention hearing was held on February 22, 2013. The juvenile court foun d a prima facie case and ordered that M.D. and A.D. remain detained and kept in foster care. Visits with Moth er while she remained incarcerated were also ordered.
B. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report In a jurisdiction/disposition report f iled on March 22, 2013, the Department recommended that A.D. and M.D. remain deta ined and that reunification services be granted to Mother. A.D. and M.D. both reported they wanted to reunify with Mo ther. They were happy to be away from her boyfriend. A.D. did the majority of cooking and cleaning in the house after Mother was incarcerated. They reported no physical or sexual abuse

3 Father has not filed an appeal.4 while in Mother’s care. They felt safe with Mother. A.D. and M.D. were bonded. If they could not be returned to Mother’s care, they would like to remain in the foster home. Mother spoke with a social worker. She had been de tained in September 2012 on a deportation warrant and was still incarcer ated. She had been advised she would be released on March 25, 2013. She claimed to have work permits to remain in the country but failed to notify the proper authoritie s when she moved from North Carolina to California. She was in the process of getting a green card. Mother had married Father in Senegal when she was 15 years old. They moved to New York. Mother was the victim of do mestic violence committe d by Father. They were divorced. Mother met her second husb and in North Carolina. Her second husband was also physically violent with her. He re peatedly raped, punche d and slapped her. He threatened her that he would di sclose her immigration status if she told anyone. He was verbally abusive w ith A.D. and M.D. A.D. was recently enrolled in a new high school and was failing a class. It was reported that M.D. suffered from attention de ficit disorder (A.D.D.) but no specific diagnosis existed. Visits had not occurred due to Mother’s incarceration. An addendum report was filed on April 29, 2013. M.D. and A.D. had been returned to Mother’s care on April 23, 2013. It was recommended that they remain in Mother’s care on a family maintenance plan. Mother reported she intended to go back to work as a hairdresser and that her brother was helping her financially. Mother a dvised a social worker that her immigration status was “her business” but she was workin g with a lawyer and she would soon receive5 her green card. Mother insist ed she could no longer be de ported. Mother had several friends who would take care of A.D. and M.D. in the event she was held again. A.D. and M.D. had expressed concern about returnin g to Mother’s care without the family engaging in therapy.
C. Amended Detention Petition On May 1, 2013, an amended section 300 petition was filed. Un der b-1 and b-2, it was alleged against Mother and Father that th ey were not part of the household and failed to provide for A.D. and M.D. The b-3 alle gation stated that Mother neglected the wellbeing of her children in that on April 29, 2013, despite the childre n being placed with Mother on family maintenance, the children were told by Mother to retu rn to the foster home. Mother did not advise the foster mo ther or the Department. The b-4 allegation stated that Mother had unresolved anger issues and lacked appropriate parenting skills in that she screams at the children and blam es them for her in volvement with the Department. A.D. was refusing to return to Mother’s care. This placed the children at risk of suffering physical and emotional harm. Finally, there was an allegation under g-2 against Father for no provision of support. It was recommended that A.D. and M.D. remain detained in a foster home. Mother was to be granted reunification serv ices. Visitation woul d be supervised and directed by the Department. According to the detention report, on April 29, 2013, bot h A.D. and M.D. appeared at their former foster home. A.D. and M.D. reported to the foster mother that Mother had an appointm ent in San Diego and she did not know when she would be back.6 Both A.D. and M.D. had been in structed by Mother to go to the foster home. They took the bus to the location. Foster mother di d not know they were coming to her house. A.D. had written a letter to the foster mo ther advising her that she and Mother had been arguing. A.D. expressed that Mother tried to control her. She also expressed how well the foster mother had treat ed her. Mother told A.D. th at the foster mother did not love her and that she only took care of her because she got paid. A. D. and M.D. had both reported they wanted to stay with the fo ster mother. The social worker went to the foster home. A.D. and M.D. were present and appeared happy and comfortable. Foster mother played some telephone messages she received from Mother. They were “contradicti ng, rude, and in a threatening tone.” The social worker believed that Mother tricked one of the children into giving her the foster mother’s telephone number. A.D. and M.D. told the fost er mother that Mother had severe mood swings, a “nasty” temper and she often screamed at them. The social worker spoke w ith A.D. Mother had told A.D. she had to go to an appointment in San Diego and she did not kno w when she would be back. A.D. wanted Mother to get a job and learn not to yell at he r and M.D. Mother di d not get enough help when they were return ed to her care and she was angrie r than before they were removed from the home. When A.D. was told she may not be able to stay in the foster home, she said, ‘“I’m not going back , I don’t want to!’” M.D. also stated that Mother yelled at him. He said that she yelled about everything, not just when they were in trouble. It made M.D. sad. M.D. wanted to stay in the foster home until Moth er could be “happier.”7 M.D. and A.D. were advised that they co uld stay in the foster home and they were both very excited. The social worker met wi th Mother to explain that A.D. and M.D. were being detained. Mother immediat ely became “confront ational, loud and aggressive.” Mother claimed that she ha d arranged for a “man” to pick up A.D. and M.D., and advised the children that if he did not pick them up, to walk to the foster home to use the telephone. Mother could not state who the children were supposed to call and became agitated. The social worker ended the encounter because of Mother’s attitude and threats. As the social worker walked aw ay, Mother yelled, ‘“I’m African, not American, and you don’t [know] who you ’re messing with! You’ll see!’” It was recommended that A.D. and M.D. remain detained so that Mother could work on her parenting skills and anger issues . It was also recomme nded that the family receive counseling. The juvenile court f ound a prima facie case as to the amended section 300 petition and ordered th at M.D. and A.D. remain de tained and kept in foster care. Supervised, weekly visitation was ordered.
D. Contested Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing On May 22, 2013, the Department filed an addendum report in anticipation of the contested jurisdiction/dispos ition hearing. It was reco mmended that A.D. and M.D. remain in the foster home and detained fro m Mother and Father. Mother was to be granted reunification services. It was reco mmended that visitation be supervised by the Department. Mother claimed that the allegations in the amended secti on 300 petition were a “lie.” Mother insisted a friend was supposed to pick up the children and they were not8 instructed to go to the foster home. Mother claimed she called the foster home when she found out they had gone there but the foster mother refused to release the children to her friend. Mother was willing to participate in se rvices in order to get A.D. and M.D. back. On May 20, 2013, A.D. refused to visit with Mother. M.D. attended visitation. Father’s whereabouts were unknown. Another addendum report was filed on July 2, 2013. Mother was participating in counseling and parenting services . A.D. had been provided a prayer rug and prayer outfit (the family was Muslim). A. D. and M.D. had not wanted to attend temple services. A.D. and M.D. did not want to visit with Mothe r. They reported during past visits that she was inappropriate and questioned them about the most recent detention. M.D. was being told not to listen to the foster mother. Mother threatened M.D. that if he listened to the foster moth er, she would slap him. At the contested hearing conducted over two days on July 2 and 3, 2013, A.D., M.D. and Mother testified, as will be provided in further detail, post . The juvenile court found the allegations under b- 2, b-4 and g-2 in the amended section 300 petition true. Mother was granted six months of reunifica tion services. The court ordered that if therapy was effective, Mother would be granted unsupervise d and overnight visits. The supervised visitation order remained unchange d. M.D. and A.D. co ntinued in their outof-home placement.9 II JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Mother contends on appeal that there wa s insufficient evidence of past or future harm to A.D. and M.D. to support the allegations in the section 300 petition. A. Additional Factual Background Mother called A.D. to testify at the cont ested jurisdiction/disp osition hearing. In 2010, Mother went to North Ca rolina and left A.D. and M.D. with a friend. The friend forgot to pick up M.D. from the bus and th e Department was called. A.D. admitted at that time she was asked by the Department if she had been abused by Mother. A.D. said she lied and told the social wo rker that she was not abused by Mother. She lied because she was afraid of getting in trouble with Mother. A.D. also stated that a social worker ca me to her school another time when Mother was getting divorced from her s econd husband. The social wo rker asked A.D. if she was being abused by Mother. She lied and said th at she was not being abused. At that time, the truth was that Mother was verbally abusiv e to her. She also would hit A.D. with her hands when A.D. used profanity. She also had pushed A.D. Other times, Mother hit A.D. when A.D. did not do her chores. A.D. lied when she was initia lly detained in this case a nd said that Mother was not abusing her. At that time, sh e was afraid of foster care. A.D. was raised as a Muslim and her Moth er would not let her date. Mother did not feel comfortable when A.D. was with ot her non-Muslim children. A.D. wanted to maintain her Muslim faith. A.D. kept up he r Muslim faith in foster care by fasting,10 reading the Koran and praying. She was t eaching M.D. about the Muslim faith. She claimed she was not doing well in school because of all that had happened. Once A.D. was out of her Mother’s care, sh e finally realized that her Mother was inappropriate by both verbally and physically abusing her. A.D. also claimed that Mother had pulled her hair and hit he r on her back. Mother had called her fat. A.D. had lied because she was afraid Mother would h it her or send her back to Senegal. A.D. did not like visits with Mother because she would ask inappropriate questions about the dependency proceeding . Mother was angry that A.D. reported Mother. Mother told A.D. no t to listen to the foster mother. A.D. loved Mother and wanted to return to her care if she went to therapy for her anger. She was willing to work with Mother. M.D. testified. M.D. also lied when he was first detained that he had not been abused by Mother. Mother had hit him “hard” with her hand on his arm and back. M.D. had observed Mother hitting A.D. M.D. loved Mother but did not want to return to her care because she said mean things to him. Moth er told him during a visit not to be nice to the foster mother. M.D. did no t want to visit with Mother. He would agree to visit with Mother if she agreed not to yell at him and if the visits were supervised. Mother testified. Mother had only left the childre n one time to go to North Carolina for medical treatment for her Lupus. She always provided someone to care for them, including when sh e was held on the immigration i ssue. She worked as a hair dresser from her home.11 Mother had arranged for A.D. and M.D. to take a taxi home on the day she had an appointment in San Diego. The taxi driver re ported to Mother that he could not find A.D. Mother claimed A.D. and M.D. ran away to the foster home. Moth er denied that she yelled at A.D. and claimed she had no chores to do at the house. A.D. did not respect Mother’s rules. Mother had never hit A.D. Mother claimed she had to yell at M.D. sometimes because of his A.D.D. and the unsafe things he di d. Mother denied she yelled at or was rude to a social worker. A.D. always did well in scho ol when w ith Mother. Mother believed that A.D. was lying abou t the abuse so she could get her way. Mother claimed no one was willing to listen to her. A.D. had changed since she was placed in the foster home. She was disrespect ful and talking back to Mother. M.D. had complained that Mother did no t have the videogames that the foster mother had in her home. Mother wanted A.D. to change back to the child she had raised. Mother was willing to do anything to get her children back. Mother insisted she had nothing to do wi th the children being detained. She had never hurt, yelled at or done anything wrong to A.D. and M.D. A.D. and M.D. were lying. Mother denied she had any behavior i ssues that needed to be fixed; A.D. needed therapy. However, she would make any cha nges she had to make to get the children back. Mother claimed she had received a green card. The juvenile court noted it had read the re ports and considered the testimony. The juvenile court found the allegations under b-2 and g-2 true. As for b-3 and b-4, the court noted that A.D. and M.D. loved Mother an d Mother loved them. Mother had done a “pretty good job” of raising the children. However, when Mother was placed on an12 immigration hold, the children realized, once they were pl aced outside the home, that Mother engaged in inappropriate behavior. This included corporal punishment and demeaning language. The juve nile court believed A.D.’s testimony. Mother was unable to recognize that she acted this way. The ju venile court believed that A.D. and M.D. took advantage of Mother leaving for an appointment and went to the foster home; the juvenile court found the b-3 allegation not true. The juvenile court found the b-4 alle gation true because Mother lacked appropriate parenting skills. The juvenile court admonished Mother that she had to realize that she needed to improve and make changes. Reunification services, including therapy, were ordered. The ju venile court noted, “I think this is a relatively simple case in order to get the kids back to mom. It ju st requires a little bit of effort and open mind.” As to visitation, the juvenile court orde red, “I am going to issue authorizations upon progress. Then the Department has the authority to provide mo ther and both kids with unsupervised visits, overnight and weeke nd visitation, as well as return on family maintenance.” B. Analysis “At the jurisdictional hearing, the court de termines whether the minor falls within any of the categories specified in section 300. [Citation.] ‘“The petitioner in a dependency proceeding must prove by a preponderance of the evid ence that the child . . . comes under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.”’ [Citation.] ( In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.)13 “A jurisdictional finding under secti on 300, subdivision (b) requires: ‘“(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the ch ild, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] The third element ‘effectively requires a showing that at the time of the jurisdictional hearing the child is at substan tial risk of serious physical harm in the future (e.g., evid ence showing a substantial risk that past physical harm will reoccur).’ [Citation.]” ( In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135.) Issues of fact and credibility are questions for the juvenile court. ( In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1258-1259.) “On appeal from an order making jurisd ictional findings, we must uphold the court’s findings unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and dr awing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is no substantial eviden ce to support the findings. [Citation.] Substantial evidence is evidence that is re asonable, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.]” ( In re Veronica G., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 185.) Here, the jurisdictional finding under b- 4 – that Mother had unresolved anger issues and lacked appropriate parenting skills – was supported by substantial evidence. The juvenile court believed A.D .’s testimony that she had been physically abused. A.D. testified that Mother had pulled her hair and hit her with her hand on her back. She had also pushed A.D. M.D. also testified that he had been hit “hard” by Mother. Physically abusing A.D. and M.D. showed a substantial risk of harm and lack of appropriate parenting skills.14 Mother also clearly had unre solved anger problems that could result in harm to A.D. and M.D. Mother had left rude and threatening messages on the foster mother’s telephone. A.D. and M.D. reported to the fo ster mother that Mother had severe mood swings and a bad temper. Mo ther had been rude and con frontational with the social worker. She threatened the social worker, telling her she did not know who she was ‘“messing with.’” Mother’s volatility certainly could present a substan tial risk of harm to both A.D. and M.D. Finally, Mother completely failed to acknowledge that she had contributed in any way to the family coming to th e attention of the Department. Mother blamed A.D. and felt that A.D. needed to cha nge. Although Mother certainly did not have to admit to the allegations made by A.D. and M.D., she demons trated a lack of insi ght into her having anything to do with the family being part of the dependency proceeding. The juvenile court could reasonably conclude based on all of the testimony that Mother’s lack of insight could result in her physically abusing A.D. and M.D. in the future. As such, the jurisdiction finding by the juvenile court under b-4 was supported by substantial evidence. This was not a situation as described by Mother of just a rebellious teenager who wanted more freedom. Mother had unresolv ed anger issues and lacked appropriate parenting skills. “When a dependency petition alleges multip le grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s ju risdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over th e minor if any one of the statutory bases for15 jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not cons ider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supp orted by the evidence. [Citations.]” ( In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) He re, the evidence supported the b-4 allegation and no further disc ussion of the other allegations in the petition is necessary.
III DISPOSITIONAL FINDING Mother contends that the juvenile cour t erred by maintaining placement of A.D. and M.D. with the foster mother and re fusing to return them to her care. “After the juvenile court finds a child to be within its jurisdic tion, the court must conduct a dispositional hearing. [Citation.] At the dispositional hearing, the court must decide where the child w ill live while under the court's supervision.” ( In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169.) “A removal order is proper if based on proof of parental inability to provide pr oper care for the child and proof of a potential detriment to the child if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] ‘The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to th e child.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.” ( Id. at pp. 169-170.) “Before the court issues a removal order, it must find the child’s welfare requires removal because of a substantial danger, or risk of danger, to the child’s physical health if he or she is returned home, and there are no reasonable alternatives to protect the child.16 [Citations.] There must be clear and convinci ng evidence that removal is the only way to protect the child.” ( In re N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 170.) We apply the substantial evidence rule to review the court’s factual determination regarding disposition. “‘. . . [O]n appeal fro m a judgment required to be based upon clear and convincing evidence, “the clear and conv incing test disappears . . . [and] the usual rule of conflicting evidence is applied, givi ng full effect to the re spondent’s evidence, however slight, and disregarding the appellant’s evidence, however strong.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence [or] to consider the cred ibility of witnesses . . . .’” ( In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 580- 581, fn. omitted.) The record in the in stant case amply supports the juve nile court’s finding that the physical health of A.D. and M.D. was subjec t to a substantial risk of danger if they remained in the care and cust ody of Mother. As stated, ante , Mother had previously physically abused both A.D. and M.D. Further, she had unre solved anger problems. This presented a risk to the children should she be unable to control her temper. In fact, A.D. and M.D. did not want to return to her cu stody unless she resolv ed these problems. Additionally, based on all of the evidence, Mo ther clearly left A.D. and M.D. in the custody of others who could not adequately care for them . The juvenile court could consider that returning A.D. and M.D. to Mother’s custody, without first having her complete counseling in order to resolve these issues, presente d a substantial risk of harm to A.D. and M.D., and no reasonable alterna tive to their removal from her care existed.17 Further, as noted above, Mother deni ed any complicity in the dependency proceedings. Her lack of insight presented a s ubstantial risk of danger to A.D. and M.D. Substantial evidence was presented to support the dispositional order.
IV VISITATION Mother’s third claim is inco mprehensible. Although she stated in her brief that she is raising the issue that the juvenile court’s visitation order was an improper delegation of authority, she provides absolu tely no coherent argument to support the claim. She complains that A.D. and M.D. were allowed to refuse visitation and that “there is no reason to believe after trial vi sitation with mother is going to magically begin” and that it makes reunification impo ssible. She provides no citation to the improper visitation order. She provides no further clarification in her reply brief. The juvenile court order shows that the prior, supervised visitation was to be continued. It further authorized the Depa rtment to provide unsupervised visits and overnight visitation if there was progress in therapy. An order setting the terms of visitation in a dependency procee ding is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. ( In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1356.) We cannot conclude this was an abuse of discretion. Further, if A.D. and M.D. refuse to attend visitation, the juvenile court is in no position to force them to attend. We reject Mother’s claim.18 V DISPOSITION The juvenile court orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI Acting P. J.
We concur:

MILLER J.

CODRINGTON J.