J.M.

I. INTRODUCTION

J.M. is the mother of M.M., the child at issue in this juvenile dependency case. The mother has filed a petition for extraordinary writ seeking review of the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 permanency planning hearing. The mother has also filed a number of supplemental writ petitions. In her writ petitions, the mother contends the juvenile

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. court erred by asserting jurisdiction over the child, by bypassing reunification services, and by committing a variety of procedural errors. L.M., the maternal grandmother of the child, has also filed a petition for extraordinary writ and several supplemental writ petitions.2 She repeats many of the claims of error asserted by the mother, and she contends that the juvenile court erred by denying her section 388 petitions and her request for de facto parent status. For reasons that we will explain, we will deny the mother’s and maternal grandmother’s writ petitions. The mother has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which…