Reunification services to the previously-custodial parent were not made moot by reunification with the previously-noncustodial parent. The mother and the minors appealed an order requiring the department to provide family maintenance services, contending that the court erred in ordering family maintenance instead of reunification services to the mother because the children were placed in the father’s custody. The mother also contended that the department had not provided reasonable reunification services for her even though the services were court ordered and in the children’s best interests. The department contended that services to the nonreunifying parent are discretionary. The appellate court found the department’s argument missed the point because it had failed to provide the mother with the previously-ordered services, and so must now provide those services. It reversed the order providing family-maintenance services to the mother and ordered the department to implement the previous order that the mother be provided reasonable reunification services. The original order was not made moot simply because the children had reunified with their father in the meantime.