In Re Brittany M.

Harold La Flamme and Duane T. Neary, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

On August 19, 1993, the Supreme Court, having accepted this case for review, issued its order directing us to reconsider our decision in light of Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242 [ 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 ]. In Cynthia D., the question was whether Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 [1] offends due process rights by allowing the juvenile court to terminate parental rights based on detriment findings made by a preponderance of evidence at earlier stages of the dependency proceedings. Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) provides that, barring the existence of certain enumerated circumstances, if the court determines a minor is adoptable, "... the findings ... pursuant to Section 366.21 or Section 366.22 that a minor cannot or should not be returned to his or her parent or guardian, shall then constitute a sufficient basis for termination of parental rights...." Under section 366.21, subdivision (e), at the six-month review hearing, the court shall order the return of a dependent…