With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to waive counsel, the trial court inquired as to whether she understood that a petition had been filed to terminate her parental rights to her children, the court did not determine whether respondent mother comprehended the nature of the TPR petition, the proceedings, and what termination of her rights would actually mean. The trial court also did not inquire into whether respondent mother understood and appreciated the consequences of her decision to waive counsel. This Court has held in criminal cases that “[i]n omitting the second and third inquiries required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242, the trial court failed to determine whether defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.” State v. Evans, 153 N.C. App. 313, 316, 569 S.E.2d 673, 675 (2002) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the same analysis applies in TPR

A: holding that waiver of counsel may be valid absent an inquiry by the court where the surrounding facts and circumstances including the defendants background and conduct demonstrate that he actually understood his right to counsel and the difficulties of pro se representation and knowingly and intelligently waived his right internal quotation marks omitted
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding courts inquiry into probationers expressed desire to proceed pro se did not satisfy nc gen stat  15a1242 when court merely ascertained that probationer did not have counsel did not desire counsel and understood that he could have had counsel appointed court failed to inquire as to whether probationer understood and appreciated consequences of his decision and court failed to ascertain whether probationer comprehended nature of charges and proceedings and range of permissible punishments that he faced
D.