In In re Derrick S. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 436 the court found additional support for the conclusion that there is no absolute right to receive the maximum amount of statutorily fixed services in the language of section 361.5, subdivision (b), which sets forth 15 situations in which a court need not order any reunification services. (In re Derrick S., supra, at p. 445.) The court also relied on the language of section 366.21, subdivision (e), which provides that at the six-month review hearing a juvenile court "'shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent . . . pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5,'" yet also provides that if a child is not returned to a parent, the court shall order that reunification services be "'initiated, continued, or terminated.'" (In re Derrick S., supra, at p. 446.) The Derrick S. court harmonized these seemingly conflicting provisions to mean that ordinarily 12 months of services would be provided for a parent of a dependent child over the age of three, but may be discontinued in the rare case when the likelihood of reunification is extremely low. (Ibid.) While the Derrick S. court noted that the situations supporting early termination of services would be rare, it recognized that the case before it was such a case. (Id. at p. 450.) The mother was a fugitive on the run from law enforcement and had failed to take advantage of any of the services arranged during the prior six months. (Id. at p. 447.) Thus, providing additional reunification services would be the equivalent of providing them to an "empty chair." (Id. at p. 448.)