In In re Gilberto M. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1194, the father was incarcerated during the first phases of the dependency proceeding. The child's mother had died, as in the case at bench. The father first appeared by counsel at the section 366.21 review hearing. ( Id. at p. 1197.) The Court of Appeal rejected the father's claim that the juvenile court had lacked authority to issue "pertinent orders" ( id. at pp. 1198-1199) and concluded that by his "participation in the section 366.21 hearing, appellant acknowledged the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and is precluded from challenging it here." ( Id. at p. 1200.) In that case, DCFS failed to notice a father of a section 366.21 hearing. The father appeared at the hearing and litigated the matter. The court did not appoint counsel for the father prior to the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court terminated the father's parental rights. On appeal, the court determined that appellant waived any deficiency of notice by subsequently appearing and litigating without objection, and that his waiver acted to preclude him from challenging on appeal the court's failure to appoint counsel prior to the section 366.21 hearing. In so holding, the court stated, "once a waiver has occurred, as here, it is unimportant whether the right to counsel is merely statutory ( 317) or is a right of constitutional significance, as argued by appellant. His failure to raise it then precludes his raising the issue now." ( Gilberto M., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.)