Parents sought writ relief from orders terminating their services and setting a 366.26 hearing. They contended that the trial court erroneously looked to the date previously set for the 12-month review hearing, (now four months from the six month review hearing), rather than a date six months from the time of the six- month review hearing, in determining whether there was a substantial probability their children could be returned to them by the 12-month hearing date. The appellate court rejected the argument and denied the petition. The trial court properly looked to the date previously set for the 12-month review hearing. The court disagreed with the holding of Dawnel D. v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App. 4th 393, to the extent that it held otherwise, as it is inconsistent with the overall statutory scheme which sets strict time limits for reunification and for establishing permanent plans in an expeditious manner.