J.R., In re (2022) B314532M B314532M; filed 8/25/22. ![[Files/CaseFiles/B314532M.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B314532M.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Case-specific standing holding. Opinion filed August 23, 2022, modified August 25, 2022; original page 26 (PDF page 28). The modification limits the appeal to notice of the section 366.26 hearing, while earlier notice failures inform standing and prejudice. > In sum, we hold that father has standing to maintain this appeal because, under the unique facts of this case, DCFS’s failure to afford mother with constitutionally adequate notice of the proceedings warrants the reversal of the order terminating both parents’ rights. — J.R., In re (2022) B314532M, slip op., p. 26.