Reunification services for the father were not required where the minor was not placed in foster care or with a formerly noncustodial parent. Following jurisdiction, the minor was placed with his mother on family maintenance. The presumed father, who was incarcerated throughout the proceedings, was denied services. On appeal, the father argued that he was entitled to reunification services under section 361.5 as a matter of law as a former custodial parent. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Section 361.5 is inapplicable when at the disposition hearing, the child is returned to the custody of a parent. Because the minor was placed neither in foster care nor in the home of a formerly custodial parent, the father was not entitled to services under section 361.5.