Family reunification services play a critical role in dependency proceedings. ( 361.5; In re Alanna A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 555, 563; In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458; see 42 U.S.C. 629a(a)(7).) The purpose of the reunification plan is "to overcome the problem that led to removal in the first place." (Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748.) Any reunification plan must take into account the special needs of a parent who is physically disabled, developmentally delayed or mentally ill. (See In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1792; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545-546.) If reasonable services are not provided to the family, the court is required to continue the case for the period of time permitted by statute. ( 366.21, subds. (e), (g)(1).) To support a finding of reasonable services, "the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . ." (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) "The . . . reasonableness of the Agency's efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) When a party challenges the finding that reasonable services were offered or provided, we determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding by reviewing the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court's ruling. (In re Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.) In applying the substantial evidence test to a finding of reasonable efforts, we keep in mind that clear and convincing evidence must support the finding. (In re Victoria M. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1317, 1326.) The party challenging the finding bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the ruling. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.) When the court places a dependent child in out-of-home care, the court must order the Agency to provide the parent with services designed to help a family reunify. (California Welfare and Institutions Code 361.5, subd. (a).) The Agency is required to make a good faith effort to address the parents' problems through services, to maintain reasonable contact with the parent during the course of the plan, and to make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult. (Armando L. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554-555.) "The . . . reasonableness of the Agency's efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) Reunification services are voluntary; they cannot be forced onto parents who are unwilling or indifferent. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365.) Furthermore, because it is almost always true that better services could be provided in an ideal world, we merely determine whether the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances of this case. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 48; In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) Reunification services should be tailored to the particular needs of the family. (David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 793.) "Visitation between a dependent child and his or her parents is an essential component of a reunification plan, even if actual physical custody is not the outcome of the proceedings." (In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 580; In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450, 458.) To promote reunification, visitation must be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. ( 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A); In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 972.) To support a finding reasonable services were offered or provided, "the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . ." (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.) The "adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the Agency's efforts are judged according to the circumstances of each case." (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164.) "The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances." (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.) If reasonable services are not provided or offered to the parent, the court is required to continue the case for the period of time permitted by statute. (See 366.21, subds. (e) and (g)(1).) The dependency statutes are designed to balance numerous competing interests, including the interest in preserving a family unit, the parents' interest in the custody and care of their children, and the child's interest in a stable, permanent relationship with a fully-committed caretaker. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 446.) Under the statutory scheme, a parent's interest in reunification is given precedence over a child's need for stability and permanency up until the time reunification services are ordered terminated and the case is set for a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. (Id. at p. 447.) Once parental "'reunification services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.'" (Ibid.) "'A court hearing a motion for change of placement at the permanency planning stage of the proceedings must recognize this shift of focus in determining the ultimate question before it, that is, the best interests of the child.'" (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527.) As an "'"escape mechanism"'" to allow the court to consider new information even after termination of reunification services, a parent may file a motion for modification of the court's orders. (In re Zacharia D., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 447; 388.) Section 388 allows a parent to file a modification petition based on "change of circumstances or new evidence" ( 388, subd. (a)(1)) and instructs the court to hold a hearing "if it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . ." ( 388, subd. (d)). To obtain modification, the parent has the burden to establish that (1) new evidence or changed circumstances exist, and (2) the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child. (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806.) The section 388 petition should be liberally construed in favor of granting a hearing to consider the parent's request, and the parent need only make a prima facie showing of the required elements to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309-310; In re Zachary G., supra, at p. 806.) A prima facie showing "'is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.'" (Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 417; In re Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 806.) The showing may consist of "'slight evidence which creates a reasonable inference of fact sought to be established but need not eliminate all contrary inferences.'" (Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1172, fn. 14.) To be entitled to a hearing, the petitioner need not establish a probability of prevailing, but need only present evidence that might warrant a change in the court's order. (In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 424, 432-433; In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 461.) In determining whether the petition makes the necessary showing, the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189.) If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing, the court need not order a full evidentiary hearing on the petition. (In re Zachary G., supra, at p. 806.) On appeal, the Court reviews the court's finding of no prima facie showing for abuse of discretion. (In re Brittany K. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505.) The Court must uphold the order unless the court's determination was arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 205.)