With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The trial court then conducted a lengthier discussion with respondent mother about her decision to proceed pro se. At that point, the court asked respondent mother whether she understood that if YFS was successful in its petition, respondent mother would not be allowed to have a relationship with her children. Instead of directly answering, respondent mother repeatedly insisted that YFS could not prove its allegations. The trial court eventually said, “Oh, my God — [respondent mother], I desperately need you to answer my question,” after which respondent mother finally indicated she understood. By this point in the hearing, however, a YFS social worker had already testified for YFS. Because the trial court did not make the necessary inquiries to determine e id., 661 S.E.2d at 727 (<HOLDING>); In re Watson, 206 N.C. App. 507, 519, 706

A: holding trial court failed to make a finding of fact but rather made a finding of the ultimate question of law  that the defendants plea was not knowingly and intelligently made
B: holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial
C: holding new trial was warranted where trial court did not make adequate determination pursuant to nc gen stat  15a1242 whether defendants decision to proceed pro se was knowingly intelligently and voluntarily made
D: holding that later colloquy that took place between defendant and trial court concerning defendants decision to waive counsel did not cure earlier failure by court to fulfill requirements of nc gen stat  15a1242 because it did not take place until first day of defendants sentencing proceeding more than five months after defendant was permitted to proceed without assistance of counsel and approximately two months after defendant proceeding pro se pleaded guilty to murder
C.