In In re Dino D. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, the juvenile court had determined that although no reunification services had been offered the parent by county welfare officials over 18 months, it had no choice but to set the case for a selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26 because, despite parent's request for an extension of time to provide reunification services, " 'the law doesn't permit it.' " ( Id. at p. 1775.) Granting a peremptory writ of mandate, the Sixth District eschewed "a mechanical approach" to the provision of reunification services. After noting that "in the usual case, a service plan will be developed at the dispositional hearing and its implementation will be reviewed at six- and twelve-month intervals," the Dino D. court reasoned that "where no reunification plan is in place . . . a strict enforcement of the time line does not provide the opportunity to reunite the family." "We do not believe," the court concluded, "that such a result was intended by the Legislature." ( Id. at p. 1778.) Instead, it formulated the governing rule this way: "We conclude that under the circumstances of this case, where the court was faced with the prospect that the 18 months had elapsed and no reunification plan had been developed for the parent, the court was entitled to weigh the various interests involved and exercise its discretion." (Ibid.)