Danielle S. v. Super. Ct.
Danielle S. contends the juvenile court erred when it set a hearing to select and implement a permanency plan for her son, Z.G., under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. She argues the juvenile court was required to consider the possibility or probability she would qualify for extended services at the 18-month review hearing in determining at the 12-month hearing whether to extended services. We deny the petition.
Comments on Danielle S. v. Super. Ct.