C.C.

I. INTRODUCTION

C.M. is the mother of B.M., J.O., and Y.O., the children at issue in this juvenile dependency case. The mother has filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking review of the juvenile court’s orders terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 permanency planning hearing.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. In her writ petition, the mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding that the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (the Department) offered her reasonable reunification services. For the reasons stated below, we find that the juvenile court’s findings and orders are supported by substantial evidence, and we will therefore deny the mother’s writ petition.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Section 300 Petition and Initial Hearing Report On July 23, 2012, the Department filed petitions under section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (d) [sexual abuse], alleging that the children came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. At the time, B.M. was 10 years old, J.O. was…