Reunification services were terminated to the parents regarding two older siblings, and a section 366.26 hearing was set. The court then denied services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) to a younger sibling. On appeal, father argued that the court erred in applying section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) because the denial of services occurred on the same day as the termination of services to the older siblings. Father contended that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) requires both that services be terminated after reunification has failed and that the parent has not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems which led to removal. Therefore, he argues that the findings require a passage of time between termination of services to one child, and denial of services to another. The court rejected the argument and affirmed. Where some time has elapsed after the termination of services, the court must take into account the parents’ reasonable efforts. However, when the two proceedings occur in immediate proximity, the “no reasonable efforts” clause is a formality because the parents’ situation will not have changed. The statute does not require any lapse of time between the termination of services to one sibling and the denial of services to another.