In In re Edgar M. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 727, the minor had been removed from the home at detention, returned to his parents and then removed again at the dispositional hearing. (In re Edgar M., supra, at p. 731.) The court carefully limited its discussion of the applicability of section 249 to the removal at the dispositional hearing, noting that the validity of the earlier temporary detention order at the detention hearing was not at issue in the present appeal. (In re Edgar M., supra, at p. 738.) The Supreme Court noted that requiring an applicant to present a statement of reasons "affords the applicant full opportunity for written objection and argumentation. Thus a judge's decision to deny that application and hence adopt the referee's determinations as those of the court is based on data amply sufficient for forming a judgment independent from that of the referee. Under these circumstances, the referee's initial findings and orders become only advisory and their rendition constitutes no more than a subordinate judicial duty. " (Edgar M., supra, 14 Cal.3d at pp. 735-736, ) Thus, under Edgar M., a juvenile court called upon to consider an application for rehearing must review any and all materials necessary to make an independent judgment of the matter that was before the referee.