In the Interest of J.A.H.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Nuss, J.:

On the morning of trial to determine whether a child

was in need of care, his father requested court-appointed counsel and a continuance. In denying the requests, the district court observed that almost 70 days earlier the father had released his court-appointed counsel and elected to proceed pro se. Accordingly, the trial proceeded with the father representing himself and the court finding that the child, J.A.H., was in need of care as defined by K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 38-1502(a)(l), (2), and (3). The Court of Ap*376peals affirmed. In re J.A.H., No.…