Where father was incarcerated and his relatives were inappropriate placements, deficient notice of hearings did not require reversal. Father appealed from an order denying his 388 petition and terminating his parental rights, contending that he was never given proper notice and was therefore unable to assert his status as a presumed father. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his 388 petition because the Department did not comply with section 316.2, which requires notice to an alleged father that he has a right to be present at hearings to establish paternity. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the failure to grant the 388 petition. It would not have been in the minor’s best interest to grant father’s request and undo the proceedings. Father was incarcerated, and his relatives were not appropriate placements. Earlier notice to father would not have caused any difference in the outcome of the jurisdiction/disposition hearings.