The mother of W. C. W., P. D. W., and P. N. W. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to all three children. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the juvenile court erred in failing to appoint her counsel or to allow her to obtain counsel. We hold that the evidence supported the termination order. However, because the juvenile court erred in failing to conduct the proper inquiries and to make the proper findings regarding the mother’s lack of counsel, we must vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. Viewed in favor of the juvenile court’s judgment, In the Interest of A. G. ,1 the evidence shows that in May 2005, Troup County Department of Family and Children Services the “Department” filed a deprivation petition concerning the mother’s three children W. C. W., P. D. W., and P. N. W., who were then seven, six, and four years old, respectively based on the mother’s chronic illegal drug abuse and unemployment that had resulted in the children’s having inadequate housing, food, and care. Under the deprivation order, the children were left in the care of the mother, who at the time was represented by appointed counsel; however, continued custody was conditioned on the mother complying with a case plan that required her to undergo a certified drug treatment program, to obtain suitable housing for the children, to obtain stable employment providing an adequate income, and to remain drug-and-alcohol-free. She failed to comply with the plan, relapsing into drug and alcohol abuse and failing to obtain either employment or suitable housing. In October 2005, the Department filed a petition for custody of the children, which the court granted based on another finding of deprivation. The mother again agreed to the case plan, this time specifically acknowledging that she bore the legal obligation of providing the Department with child support while the children remained in the Department’s custody.
Over the next year, the mother relapsed into drug use and did not begin a drug-treatment program until November 2006, but even then she attended only six of 34 scheduled sessions and quit the program entirely in January 2007, when she had yet another relapse into drug use. Knowing this treatment was required to get her children back, she promised in October 2007 to reenter the drug treatment program, but she failed to do so. From October 2005 until late January 2008, she lived at a home which even she conceded was unsuitable for children, given the prevalence of drug use by other residents. During this same time period, her sporadic employment did not provide, according to her own admission, an income adequate to support the children. Because of these circumstances, she repeatedly stipulated in unappealed orders —in which she was sometimes represented by the same appointed counsel —that the children were deprived and should remain in the Department’s custody, with the most recent order occurring in September 2007. She never forwarded any funds to the Department for the children’s support.
