At the time of the twelve month review hearing, the minor was living in a group home, but social workers expected him to be able to be released at some point to a less restrictive environment. Mother had not made sufficient progress to reunify with him. At the hearing, the court terminated reunification services to mother and stated that “the plan for a permanent living arrangement is appropriate.” On appeal, mother argued that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by designating a permanent plan which is not one of the three plans (long term foster care, adoption, or guardianship) that is authorized by the code. Although the court agreed, it found that the juvenile court had simply replaced the phrase “long term foster care” with “another planned permanent living arrangement” and ordered the language of the order modified.