In In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, the court considered whether a mother appealing an order terminating her parental rights as to her son had standing to claim the son and his sisters received ineffective assistance of counsel because they were all represented by the same attorney despite their conflicting interests in sibling visitation. Daniel H. noted the conflict between In re Patricia E. (1985) and In re Frank L. (2000) and found Frank L. to be persuasive, stating: "We see no rational basis for denying parents the right to raise sibling visitation directly, but permitting them to raise it indirectly by way of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Standing depends on the nature of the party's interests, not the phrasing of the argument. Effective or not, counsel's advocacy, or lack thereof, regarding sibling visitation simply does not affect the parent's interest in reunification. . . . We agree with Frank L. and adopt its holding: A parent must show that counsel's alleged conflict of interest actually affected the parent's interests." ( Id. at pp. 810-811.)