In In re Randalynne G. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1156, the juvenile court established a guardianship pursuant to section 366.26, and ordered that parental visitation was to be "'as directed by the legal guardian(s).'" (97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1160-1162.) The juvenile court reaffirmed this visitation order at a subsequent hearing. ( Id. at p. 1162.) The court in Randalynne G. reversed the visitation order under Danielle W. and Moriah T., reasoning that it is improper to place the parents' visitation rights in the hands of a legal guardian who had taken up an adversary position and with whom the parents had a "'fractious relationship.'" ( In re Randalynne G., supra, at p. 1170.) The juvenile court ordered that " 'visitation between the child and mother and father shall be as directed by the legal guardian in this case.' " (Id. at p. 1163.) The appellate court held the "order was improper because it left the entire issue of visitation in the hands of the guardian. It did so even though it had before it the social worker's report which states that the guardian did not want to be involved in visitation and the guardian was requesting that the Department continue to administer visitation. In light of this fact, it would be disingenuous to claim that the guardian was merely administering visitation." ( Id. at p. 1165.) The Randalynne G. court further concluded: "Even if the juvenile court had determined the parents had a right to reasonable visitation, delegations to private persons to control visitations have not generally been upheld because such persons are not as accountable to the court as a child protective services agency. This is primarily because the delegation to a private person does not contain any of the government imprimatur that tends to validate administration of a visitation order by the department." (Randalynne G., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166.)