In In re Natasha H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1151, the court reviewed termination of dependency where the dependent, still a minor, had run away from every home in which she had been placed. The department successfully argued to the juvenile court that continuing the jurisdiction of the dependency court would be "futile." (Id. at p. 1155.) The Court of Appeal reversed and held that "obstinacy and defiance test the patience of adults charged with the tending to the needs of minor children. Under the trial court's reasoning the more obstinate the child the greater the justification for terminating jurisdiction. We disagree. As much as the minor might wish to be rid of court supervision, and as frustrating as her conduct might be to DHHS and the court, her misbehavior and lack of cooperation do not justify termination of her dependency status absent extraordinary circumstances not present here that make it in her best interest to do so." (Id. at p. 1153.) In re Natasha H. implicitly highlights the importance of the dependent's status as minor or adult in the context of terminating the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. A person is considered a minor under the laws of California until he or she turns 18, and after that is considered to be an adult. (Fam. Code, 6500, 6501.)