In In re C.S., 115 Ohio St. 3d 267, 2007 Ohio 4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, the Ohio Supreme Court instructed courts to use a totality of the circumstances analysis to decide whether a juvenile has validly waived counsel. Id. at P108. This test incorporates "a number of factors and circumstances, including the age, intelligence, and education of the juvenile; the juvenile's background and experience generally and in the court system specifically; the presence or absence of the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian; the language used by the court in describing the juvenile's rights; the juvenile's conduct; the juvenile's emotional stability; and the complexity of the proceedings." Id. The Supreme Court in In re C.S. emphasized that the juvenile court judge must be aware that not all parents are in a position to sufficiently counsel or advise their child in a delinquency proceeding, Id. at P110, and that a judge, acting as parens patriae, has the inherent authority to appoint counsel for the juvenile to determine whether he should waive his rights, although the court is not required to do so. Id., at P99. In In re C.S., the Ohio Supreme Court held that in a juvenile delinquency case, the preferred practice is strict compliance with Juv.R. 29(D). In re C.S., 115 Ohio St. 3d at 285. If the trial court substantially complies with Juv.R. 29(D) in accepting an admission by a juvenile, the plea will be deemed voluntary absent a showing of prejudice by the juvenile or a showing that the totality of the circumstances does not support a finding of a valid waiver. For purposes of juvenile delinquency proceedings, substantial compliance means that in the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile subjectively understood the implications of his plea. In re C.S., 115 Ohio St. 3d at 285-286.