Holly had been a dependent of the juvenile court since the age of 3. She had a history of rejecting the assistance of Social Services, failing to show for appointments, follow through with medications, and dropping out of job training. When she was 19, the Department recommended terminating jurisdiction, and the court did so, after finding that the Department had complied with the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 391 by providing Holly with resources which she refused to take advantage of. On appeal, Holly argued that jurisdiction should not have been terminated because despite her “careless attitude” towards services, she still needed assistance. The appellate court affirmed the order terminating jurisdiction. Jurisdiction should be retained by the juvenile court beyond a dependent’s 18th birthday only when there is a reasonably foreseeable threat of harm to the child. Although it was clear that Holly still needed assistance, it was also clear that she repeatedly refused to take advantage of services that had been offered. Her continued participation in the juvenile dependency system could not reasonably be expected to prevent any future harm. The trial court properly considered her unwillingness to utilize services in deciding to terminate jurisdiction.