Reasonable services were not provided where developmentally disabled parents were given limited visitation with the minor. Parents sought writ review of juvenile court orders terminating reunification services and setting a 366.26 hearing, contending that there was not substantial evidence to support findings that it would be detrimental to return the minor and that reasonable services were not provided to them. The appellate court held that the parents, who were developmentally disabled, did not receive reasonable services because the Department unreasonably limited visitation services. All reports were that the parents were devoted to the minor and his safety. Harm to a child cannot be presumed from the mere fact that a parent is developmentally disabled. When the Department limits visitation in the absence of evidence showing that the parents’ behavior has jeopardized or will jeopardize the safety of the child, reasonable services are not provided. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its previous order and reinstate services with expanded visitation with the minor.