In In re George M. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 376, the court held that in setting the maximum term of commitment, the juvenile court is not free to exercise its discretion and choose from the range of terms for enhancements to the principle and any subordinate terms. The court noted that "section 726 requires the juvenile court to specify in its commitment order the 'maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.' Section 726 is directive, and it requires the court to use the upper term for the proven offense or offenses. )" (Id. at p. 380.) Although section 726 does not specify which among the three enhancement terms the court must use, the court observed that when section 726 was enacted the various enhancement statutes prescribed only one term. Only later did the Legislature amended the enhancement statutes to institute the familiar scheme of lower, middle, upper terms. Although section 726 has not been amended, the court reasoned that since section 726 specifies that the maximum term must be calculated using the upper term for the underlying offense, is "logical that the method for selecting the term for the underlying offense should apply in selecting the term for an enhancement. The sentiment expressed in section 726 leads us to believe the Legislature intended the term of confinement to be maximized, not minimized, when a range of terms is available." (In re George M., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 381.)