In In re Joshua R. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1020, Joshua was taken into protective custody immediately after his birth in 1997. Joshua's mother did not know who his father was, but she identified three possible candidates. Joshua was returned to his mother for a time, but was the subject of two subsequent dependency proceedings in 1998 and 2002. During the second dependency proceeding, DCFS found alleged father Joshua L. (father) in state prison; father conceded Joshua could be his child, but declined to attend the dependency hearings. (Id. at pp. 1022-1023.) When the third dependency proceeding was filed, father once again was incarcerated, but apparently appeared at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, where he requested a paternity test. The court denied the request, and father appealed. (Id. at p. 1024-1025.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the paternity test. It agreed with the juvenile court that father was not a presumed father, and thus he was not entitled to either family reunification services or custody. (Joshua R., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025.) Further, although the court acknowledged a "theoretical advantage" father could gain from a finding of paternity, it held it inapplicable in the present case. The court explained: "The juvenile court has discretion to offer a mere biological father reunification services based on a finding it would benefit the child. ( 361.5, subd. (a).)