In Ansley v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 477, the section 300 petition stated that the natural father's current address was unknown. The father did not appear in the dependency proceedings, and a judgment was entered adjudicating the minor a dependent of the juvenile court and ordering the minor's continued placement in foster care. (Id. at p. 481.) The Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services later filed a petition under Civil Code section 232 seeking to terminate parental custody and control of the minor. The father received service of a citation on the section 232 petition by mail posted to an address in care of his mother. The father appeared at the termination hearing and announced his challenge to the underlying dependency status of his child. He claimed that he was not served with notice of the dependency proceedings and that the Department did not make a due process effort to notify him. The father ultimately unsuccessfully sought to vacate the dependency adjudication judgment by way of a section 388 petition. (Id. at pp. 481-482.) Finding that the juvenile court clearly abused its discretion in refusing to consider the merits of the section 388 petition, the appellate court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its order denying the petition. (Id. at pp. 488, 491.)