M.R. v. Super. Ct.
Mother, M.R., contends that the court erred in terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] She contends that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile courts findings that reasonable reunification services had been offered, and that returning the children to the parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. Mother also contends that the court abused its discretion in rejecting her claim that her unique circumstances and special needs justified extending reunification services beyond 18 months. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts findings, and that the court did not abuse its discretion. Court therefore affirm the order.
Comments on M.R. v. Super. Ct.