In Dawnel D. v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 393, the mother argued that the court abused its discretion when it terminated reunification services at six months even though she had consistently participated in certain components of her reunification plan, including battered women groups and parenting classes. (Dawnel D., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 397-398.) The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the real problem was the mother's substance abuse. ( Id. at p. 398.) By testing positive for drugs and failing to test according to schedule, she failed in her participation "in the most crucial aspect of the reunification plan ...." (Ibid.) Thus, the court found substantial evidence supported the lower court's finding regarding the mother's noncompliance with her case plan. (Ibid.) In Dawnel D., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 393, the court concluded although substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the mother did not comply with the reunification plan, the trial court examined the wrong time frame. It did so only by looking at the time remaining before the 12-month review hearing would be scheduled. ( Id. at p. 398.) The court held that under the plain language of section 366.21, subdivision (e), the trial court must consider the full six-month period, regardless of when the 12-month reunification period would expire in a particular case. ( Id. at p. 399.)