In this case the grandmother was appointed as guardian for children in a long term plan of guardianship, but the guardianship was terminated when the court adopted a long term plan of foster care. The grandmother contended on appeal that 1) she was deprived of due process notice and opportunity to be heard which is 15 notice under rule 1460; and 2) the court erred in finding that she could not continue as guardian within a plan of long term foster care. The court held that the notice objection was waived by the guardian’s failure to object in the trial court. As to the contention that juvenile court law permitted her to continue as guardian. While it is true that the Welfare and Institutions Code refers to granting services to guardians as well as parents, that is intended to apply to persons who are guardians at the time the dependency proceeding is initiated. This was not intended to apply to the guardian appointed by the juvenile court within a long term plan. Only one long term plan may be selected. If it later turns out that the grandmother qualifies to serve as guardian, then guardianship may become appropriate plan, but guardianship is not currently the appropriate plan.