In re A.D.
Cynthia R. appeals orders terminating reunification services to her at a six-month review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e).[1] She contends section 366.21, subdivision (e) mandates the continuation of reunification services at the six-month review hearing if the court does not set a section 366.26 hearing. Alternatively, Cynthia asserts the court abused its discretion when it terminated her reunification services while at the same time extending the reunification period for the children's father to the 12-month review date. Court conclude the court's termination of reunification services at the six-month review hearing was authorized under section 366.21, subdivision (e). The juvenile court may, but need not, continue an offer of reunification services to one parent when services are extended for the other parent and no selection and implementation hearing is set. Given that discretion, we further conclude the court here properly terminated Cynthia's services because the evidence showed, despite receiving six months of services, she made no attempt at reunification and was extremely unlikely to do so in the near future.
Comments on In re A.D.