In In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, the juvenile court ordered 11-year-old Alvin to undergo weekly individual counseling with a licensed therapist and conjoint counseling with his father when Alvin's therapist deemed it appropriate or upon court order, to be addressed after eight individual sessions. (Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th, at pp. 966-967.) In the meantime, Alvin was to remain in the custody of his maternal grandmother and visits would be monitored with Alvin's consent taken into consideration. (Id. at p. 967.) The court ordered the department to assist the grandmother in enrolling Alvin in therapy. (Ibid.) However, by the progress hearing three months later, Alvin had only participated in one counseling session and had not visited his father. (Ibid.) The department explained that the delay in starting counseling was attributable to the grandmother who wanted a therapist close to her home and that Alvin had not visited his father because Alvin did not feel ready. (Id. at pp. 967-968.) Alvin had been removed from his father's custody in part because his father disciplined him by striking him with a belt. (Id. at p. 966.) The juvenile court ordered that conjoint counseling begin as soon as the therapist deemed it appropriate regardless of the number of individual sessions completed. (Id. at p. 968.) The social worker, apparently unaware of the court's order, continued to believe Alvin had to complete eight individual therapy sessions before conjoint counseling could begin. (Ibid.) As a result, a year after Alvin's detention, he and his father had only had a few visits and conjoint counseling had only just begun. (Id. at p. 969.) The juvenile court found the department provided reasonable services and ordered an additional six months of services. (Id. at p. 970.) On review of the juvenile court's reasonable services finding, the court in Alvin R. concluded that the juvenile court erred because conjoint therapy was key to reunification and the delay in initiating it was not reasonable. (Alvin R., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th, at pp. 972-973.) The court stated, "We recognize that the mere fact that more services could have been provided does not render the Department's efforts unreasonable. Here, however, reunification was not going to be accomplished without visitation, and the social worker knew that Alvin would be unlikely ever to consent to visitation without conjoint therapy. And conjoint therapy was not going to be accomplished unless some effort were made to get Alvin into individual therapy." (Id. at p. 973.) The Alvin R. court further stated there was no evidence the department made a good faith effort to bring the conjoint sessions about or assist the maternal grandmother in arranging them. (Ibid.)