In In re Jasmine J. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1802, a father urged, at the section 366.26 hearing, that the minor be placed with her sibling in the custody of a second cousin. The department opposed the request. The court denied father's request for a contested hearing and terminated his parental rights. (Jasmine J., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1805-1806.) On appeal, the father contended that the court violated his due process rights when it precluded him from contesting the department's recommendations. (Id. at p. 1807.) The court made the following comments in response to the nearly identical arguments raised by Jesus in this case: "On appeal, appellant urges that he is opposed to termination of his parental rights. He states that he was refused a contested hearing regarding the recommendation from DCS even though he provided an offer of proof to the court that Jasmine's best interests would be served in keeping her together with her sibling Patricia. Appellant's arguments on appeal focus on his due process rights . . . .. . . While appellant argues for the reversal of the order terminating his parental rights, his essential argument is that placement of Jasmine and Patricia with Ms. Washington would further Jasmine's best interests. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant has no standing to raise issues regarding the siblings' interest in each other, since his own rights have not been affected thereby." (Ibid.)