A.B., In re (2022) H049676 H049676; filed 6/14/22. ![[Files/CaseFiles/H049676.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/H049676.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Legal guardianship post-permanency review: the proposed evidence was inadequate, visitation had been litigated six months earlier, and the agency recommended maintaining the status quo. > Here, the juvenile court’s denial of father’s request for a contested hearing, after considering the evidence he proposed to put forward at such hearing and rejecting that offer of proof as inadequate, did not abridge father’s right to due process. — A.B., In re (2022) H049676, slip op., p. 36.