Father’s failure to challenge order terminating reunification services by way of writ precluded his review of the order on appeal from the subsequent 366.26 hearing, despite court’s failure to orally advise him of writ requirement. At a status review hearing regarding the minors, the Department recommended that the court terminate services and schedule a 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court found that father repeatedly failed to show up for drug testing and made no effort regarding his services. It granted the Department’s request to terminate services, and set a 366.26 hearing. Father was served with written notice of the writ requirement, but was not orally noticed. Father did not file a notice of intent to file a writ. His parental rights were subsequently terminated at the 366.26 hearing. On appeal, father sought to challenge the court’s termination of services. Respondent argued that father’s failure to challenge the order by writ petition barred his raising it on appeal from the termination order. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the termination order. There was no question that rule 5.590(b)(1) was not followed. However, rule 5.590(b)(1)’s oral advisement requirement is directory, not mandatory. Thus, a dependency court’s failure to follow the rule’s oral advisement requirement, alone, does not render it infirm. As a result, father’s challenges to the order terminating services are not cognizable on appeal.