The juvenile court may not delegate all conditions of visitation to the department, and must provide either a minimum number of visits or provide that visitation occur regularly. The presumed father of the minor appealed from an order terminating services, arguing that the juvenile court’s visitation order unlawfully delegated the responsibility of whether or not visitation would occur at all to the department. The appellate court agreed and reversed the visitation order. The oral visitation order was problematic because it provided appellant with supervised visitation and nothing more. The written order provided for visitation “as frequent as is consistent with the well-being of the minor” with all other conditions left to the department. The oral pronouncement was inconsistent with the written order. Given the lack of necessary detail in the oral pronouncement, which was vague, and the improper delegation to the department in the written order, remand was required for the juvenile court to clarify the terms and conditions applicable to visitation including, but not limited to, a minimum number of visits, or an order that visitation is to occur regularly.