In In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344, the appellate court rejected claims of insufficient notice. After the minor had been detained, the department tried to notify appellant, the alleged father, of the dispositional hearing by calling his last known telephone number. Appellant's father said "he did not want to be bothered with this matter" and hung up the telephone. At the dispositional hearing, the trial court found that appellant's whereabouts were unknown and that reasonable efforts had been made to locate and notify him, and denied reunification services. Thereafter, notices were sent by mail to appellant at an address identified in a social worker's social study, but appellant did not appear at review hearings. After attempts to notify appellant of the section 366.26 hearing failed, the department gave notice by publication. Appellant did not appear and the trial court found notice to be proper. Thereafter, appellant asserted that he became aware of the proceedings after he ran into mother. Appellant believed that his parents intercepted information concerning the hearings. Appellant contended that the department ignored the most likely means of locating him; namely, checking school and Department of Motor Vehicle records. Appellant failed to submit a declaration or testimony showing that his address was reasonably ascertainable. Such a showing is "a prerequisite for actual notice." ( Id. at p. 1353.) The court also rejected appellant's argument that the department was required to give him actual notice because the department knew that notifying appellant through his parents, who were hostile to the proceedings, was insufficient. (Ibid.)