Mother was denied reunification services with her newborn son based on a finding that she had previously failed to reunify with his brothers. Mother was incarcerated and suffering from mental illness. In her request for a writ of mandate, she argued that the court erred when it failed to provide services without considering her subsequent efforts to address the cause of the removal of the first two children. The appellate court here rejected the reasoning of Shawn S. v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1424, and followed the conflicting interpretation of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) in Marshall M. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 48. The juvenile court was not required to determine whether mother’s subsequent efforts were reasonable. Once mother failed to reunify, the presumption is that it would be a waste of resources to offer reunification services for a subsequent child. Therefore, reunification services were properly denied.