And panels of this court have concluded it is unnecessary to show a material and substantial change in circumstances because section 232.103 does not require it. See, e.g. , In re C.P. , No. 16-1459, 2016 WL 6269941, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016) ; In re K.S.-T. , No. 14-0979, 2014 WL 5865081, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014). Under section 232.103(4) :

However, we note more recent case law has called this standard into question. See In re M.M., No. 16-0548, 2016 WL 4036246, at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. App. July 27, 2016) (questioning the rule requiring a material and substantial change in circumstances before modifying the custody provision of a prior dispositional order in a CINA action because such a showing is not mandated by statute); see also In re C.P., No. 16-1459, 2016 WL 6269941, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016) (Mullins, J., concurring specially) (noting it is unnecessary to find a material and substantial change in circumstances and stating satisfaction of 232.103(4) is "required to modify the dispositional order"); In re K.S.-T., No. 14-0979, 2014 WL 5865081, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014) (noting that a showingof a change in circumstances "is not statutorily mandated"); In re V.B., No. 14-0315, 2014 WL 2600318, at *4 n.3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 11, 2014).

However, we note more recent case law has called this standard into question. See In re M.M., No. 16-0548, 2016 WL 4036246, at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. App. July 27, 2016) (questioning the rule requiring a material and substantial change in circumstances before modifying the custody provision of a prior dispositional order in a CINA action because such a showing is not mandated by statute); see also In re C.P., No. 16-1459, 2016 WL 6269941, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016) (Mullins, J., concurring specially) (noting it is unnecessary to find a material and substantial change in circumstances and stating satisfaction of 232.103(4) is "required to modify the dispositional order"); In re K.S.-T., No. 14-0979, 2014 WL 5865081, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014) (noting that a showing of a change in circumstances "is not statutorily mandated"); In re V.B., No. 14-0315, 2014 WL 2600318, at *4 n.3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 11, 2014). Although In re M.M. is not a published opinion of this court, we adopt the analysis of that opinion, see 2016 WL 4036246, at *3-4, and agree with its conclusion:

Neither provision requires the juvenile court to find a substantial change in circumstances as a prerequisite to modification. See In re K.S.-T., No. 14-0979, 2014 WL 5865081, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014) (noting that a showing of a change in circumstances "is not statutorily mandated"); In re V.B., No. 14-0315, 2014 WL 2600318, at *4 n.3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 11, 2014) ("However, since Leehey, our juvenile code has evolved. . . . To impose the additional requirement of showing a substantial change of circumstances, where our legislature has made provisions for permanency and created a two step process to modify a dispositional order to remove a child from a parent's care and transfer custody to DHS, is overly burdensome.").