The juvenile court has discretion to terminate services to one parent and continue services to the other parent where no 366.26 hearing has been set. Following mother’s assault on father, the juvenile court filed petitions regarding the two minors, and detained them in the father’s home, with a condition that mother was not allowed in the home. The court placed the minors with father under a family maintenance plan, and ordered reunification services for mother. Following the filing of a 387 petition, the minors were removed from father when mother was found in the home. At the six month review hearing, the court ordered termination of services to mother, who had not participated, but ordered services for father. Mother’s counsel argued that the court was required to continue services to mother regardless of her participation or progress as long as father was receiving services and no 366.26 hearing was set. The juvenile court terminated mother’s services. On appeal, mother contended that when the court does not return a minor to parental custody or set a 366.26 hearing, it must continue services for any parent who was previously receiving services regardless of their compliance. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed the orders. The juvenile court may, but need not, continue an offer of services to one parent when services are extended to the other parent and no 366.26 hearing has been set. Here, the court did not abuse that discretion when it terminated mother’s services because she made no attempt at reunification and was unlikely to do so in the future.