P.M. v. Super. Ct.
P.M. (Father) and S.W. (Mother) challenge an order of the Solano County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, filed February 24, 2010, in which the court set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] to select a permanent plan for the minor L.S. (born April 2008). Both claim the juvenile court should have granted them additional reunification services, as they did not receive reasonable services. Father also claims he was entitled to additional services under section 366.22, subdivision (b). As discussed below, we conclude there was no prejudicial error and deny both petitions on the merits.
Comments on P.M. v. Super. Ct.