Father forfeited right to raise the denial of reunification services on appeal. Father appealed the termination of his parental rights, contending that the juvenile court erroneously denied him family reunification services without a completed affidavit of due diligence. The appellate court agreed that the dependency proceedings were defective from the outset for want of proper notice. However, since father failed to seek relief in the juvenile court, the issue was waived on appeal. There was sufficient evidence to parental unfitness to support the termination order. Father also contended that the juvenile court’s failure to make a finding that he was unfit as a parent precluded termination of his parental rights. The appellate court rejected that argument, holding that the absence of a jurisdictional finding that specifically related to father did not preclude the termination of parental rights. The juvenile court removed the minor because there was clear and convincing evidence that there existed a substantial danger to the children and no reasonable means to protect them without removal from the parents. The court made a second finding of detriment when it denied father services under section 361.5, subdivision (b) based on his whereabouts being unknown. The social report showed that father had not supported or been involved in the child’s life. The finding of detriment was sufficient to support the termination of father’s parental rights.