Father appealed an order terminating his reunification services at the 12-month review hearing, contending the court abused its discretion in terminating his services while at the same time extending services to mother to the 18-month review date. He argued that section 366.21, subdivision (h) allows the court to terminate services at the 12-month review hearing only where it sets a 366.26 hearing. Further, he contended that the termination of services served no purpose and was a denial of his right to due process. The appellate court rejected the arguments and affirmed. Section 366.21(h) does not bar termination of services to one parent when services are extended to the other parent. The court reasonably concluded that father’s lack of progress did not merit continued services. The termination of services was rationally related to the legitimate government interest in focusing resources on parents who may benefit from them.