"Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387, in order to place a child in a more restrictive placement, the court must find that the previous disposition was not effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child. ( 387, subd. (b).)" (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 460 (Javier G.).) In conducting a hearing on a supplemental petition under section 387, the court determines whether the allegations of the petition being relied upon to show an ineffective prior disposition are true and, if true, whether removal from the placement is appropriate. (In re Miguel E. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 542.) To remove a child from the physical custody of a relative, it must be shown "that the placement is not appropriate in view of the criteria in Section 361.3." ( 387, subd. (b).) "We review a decision to remove a child from a relative caretaker under the substantial evidence test. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's determinations, resolve all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the prevailing party, and indulge in all reasonable inferences to uphold the trial court's findings. We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. " (In re H.G. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1, 12-13.) A Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 supplemental petition is used to change the placement of a dependent child from the physical custody of a parent to a more restrictive level of court-ordered care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 387, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.560, subd. (c).) The petition must establish "that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child." (Welf. & Inst. Code, 387, subd. (b).) A section 387 hearing is bifurcated into "(1) an adjudicatory hearing on the merits of the allegations in the petition and (2) a disposition hearing on the need for the removal of the child from his or her current level of placement." (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 460; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565, subd. (e)(1).) If the court finds the allegations of the supplemental petition are true, it conducts a dispositional hearing to determine whether removing custody is appropriate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565, subd. (e)(2); In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161.) Although the trial court applies different standards of proof in the jurisdiction and disposition phases, we review all the juvenile court's findings for substantial evidence. (In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216.) Under this standard, "we resolve all conflicts and make all reasonable inferences from the evidence to uphold the court's orders, if possible." (Ibid.) "We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or weigh the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in favor of the juvenile court's order and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary finding." (In re T.W., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1161-1162.) "'On appeal from a judgment required to be based upon clear and convincing evidence, "the clear and convincing test disappears . . . and the usual rule of conflicting evidence is applied, giving full effect to the respondent's evidence, however slight, and disregarding the appellant's evidence, however strong." ' " (In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 578.) "'The juvenile court has broad discretion to decide what means will best serve the child's interest.' 'Its determination will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.' " (In re Cole Y. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1456.)