In In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004 Ohio 1500, 805 N.E.2d 1110; R.C. 2151.352, two children were involved. The older child was 6 years old at the time of the permanent custody hearing, and he had been returned to the mother's custody (under the agency's supervision) during the pendency of the proceedings. The younger child had not been returned to the mother's custody. On appeal from the juvenile court's first order granting permanent custody to children services, the court of appeals held that the juvenile court "had erred in failing to consider whether the older child was entitled to counsel to represent his interests." The court gave significant weight to the fact that the older child had "repeatedly expressed a desire to remain with his mother," which conflicted with the guardian ad litem's recommendation that the motion for permanent custody be granted. Id. at P6. On remand, the juvenile court appointed an attorney for the limited purpose of identifying the children's opinions with respect to permanent custody. The attorney's filing was "little more than a statement indicating the older child's desire to live with his mother and a statement by the attorney that, due to the younger child's age, the attorney was unable to determine her wishes." The juvenile court then concluded, without holding a hearing, that there was no need to appoint counsel to fully represent the children's interests. Id. at P7. The mother again appealed, and the court of appeals held that the juvenile court had erred by failing to hold a hearing on whether the older child was entitled to representation by independent counsel. Id. at P8. It did not require further consideration of whether the younger child was entitled to an attorney. The supreme court affirmed the appellate court on the issue certified for review, holding that children who are the subject of a motion to terminate parental rights are "parties" to that proceeding and are entitled to the appointment of counsel if their interests conflict with those of the other parties. Id. at P29. The Court recognized that "courts should make a determination, on a case-by-case basis, whether the child actually needs independent counsel, taking into account the maturity of the child and the possibility of the guardian ad litem being appointed to represent the child." Id. at 403. In Williams, an older child repeatedly expressed a desire to remain with his mother while the guardian ad litem recommended termination of parental rights. The Ohio Supreme Court cited with approval the lower court's decision to follow cases holding "that when a guardian ad litem who is also appointed as the juvenile's attorney recommends a disposition that conflicts with the juvenile's wishes, the juvenile court must appoint independent counsel to represent the child." Id. at 403.