M.R.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner M.R. is the mother of A. and J., the young children at issue in this juvenile dependency case. She 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. In her petition, the mother argues that the juvenile court erred because there is no substantial risk of

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. detriment in returning the children to her since (1) she has complied with the case plan; (2) there is no substantial evidence of domestic violence; (3) there is no substantial evidence that she has a substance abuse problem; and (4) there “have not been enough hearings” to support the finding of detriment. For the reasons stated below, we determine that the juvenile court properly conducted an 18-month permanency review hearing pursuant to section 366.22, subdivision (a), although not all of the six-month and 12-month interim review hearings had been held for either A. or J. We also determine that the mother has not shown that the…