I.A.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends that insufficient evidence supports the finding of substantial detriment to the child if returned to Mother’s care, and that the juvenile court erred when it terminated reunification services. We disagree. At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must order the child returned to the parent “unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.21, subds. (e)(1), (f)(1).) “The failure of the parent . . . to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.” (§§ 366.21, subds. (e)(1), (f)(1)(B), 361.5, subd. (a)(3)(A).) The court may continue the case for six additional months only if it finds “a substantial probability that the child will be returned . . . within the extended period of time” based on findings that (A) the parent “consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child,” (B) the parent “has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the…