In Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, the appellate court upheld the denial of reunification services to a biological or alleged father under section 361.5, former subdivision (b)(10)(B), which provided that services could be denied if "'the parental rights of a parent or guardian over any sibling or half-sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half-sibling of that child from that parent or guardian.'" (Francisco G., at pp. 595-601; see now 361.5, subd. (b)(11).) The father contended the statute did not apply to him because he was not the custodial parent of the sibling or half sibling in the prior dependency proceedings, but the court held: "The term 'parent,' as used in this bypass provision, should be understood to refer to the father's status as a 'parent' of the child, not the sibling. In addition, the statutory language makes no mention of the custodial status of the sibling at the time of removal, much less require previous custody of the sibling. We decline to read such a requirement into the provision." (Francisco G., at p. 599, italics added.) But the statute at issue in the present case does "mention . . . the custodial status of the sibling at the time of removal" and does "require previous custody of the sibling." (Ibid.)