In In re Barbara P. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 926, the mother received 19 months of reunification services relating to initial petitions that were sustained while she was incarcerated. At a combined 12- and 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court sustained an amended subsequent petition alleging serious emotional harm. The court also found the mother had not made sufficient progress in her reunification plan and terminated reunification services. ( Id. at pp. 931-932.) On appeal, the court rejected the mother's contention that failure to provide additional reunification services once the subsequent petition was sustained violated her due process rights. Comparing the situation it faced to that in In re Michael S., 188 Cal. App. 3d 1448, where the court held that a parent is not entitled to further reunification services when a supplemental petition is sustained, the Barbara P. court concluded that a subsequent petition does not restart the clock for purposes of reunification services. "A finding of jurisdiction on a subsequent petition should not automatically trigger a new period of reunification services. As this procedure satisfies due process in cases in which a parent is given custody of the child and the department later seeks removal, it is equally satisfactory in cases in which there are alleged to be multiple bases of dependency jurisdiction. " (In re Barbara P., supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at pp. 933-934.) Barbara P. went on to discuss when further services could be required. "When the court later considers a subsequent petition alleging additional bases of dependency jurisdiction, further reunification services are not required in all cases. Failure to order additional reunification services after finding jurisdiction on a subsequent petition constitutes reversible error only if the particular facts of the case demonstrate an abuse of discretion . . . . Key factors in this determination would be whether the services already offered were adequate, whether they addressed the concerns raised by the subsequent petition, and whether the objectives of the reunification plan--the reunification of the family--could be achieved with the provision of additional services. " (In re Barbara P., supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 934.)