Services were properly denied where parent was identified as the parent who inflicted severe physical injury on the minor. Appellant filed a writ challenging the bypass of reunification services, arguing that the juvenile court erred when it denied him services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) without finding that he inflicted severe physical harm on the minor’s sibling by act or omission. The appellate court held that section 361.5, subdivision (b)6) does require the court to find that a parent inflicted the severe physical harm before it may deny services, and the Legislature did not intend the section to apply to a negligent parent. The parent must have been complicit in the deliberate abuse of a child. Identification of the parent who inflicted the harm is required when the evidence did not show that both parents knew the child was severely injured or was being abused. However, here appellant was identified as the offending parent when the petition was sustained. The petition alleged that both parents inflicted severe physical abuse on the minor’s sibling. The parents were the minor’s only caregivers, and the testimony showed the injuries were not inflicted accidentally. Therefore, services were properly denied, and the writ petition was denied.