order terminating Mother’s parental rights and remanded the case for further proceedings.” Id. IV. In her Application Petitioner asks in pertinent part whether “counsel for an indigent minor parent[,]” such as Petitioner, should have been appointed “to defend her parental rights and advise her while her child remained in foster care for more than nineteen months[.]” V. We hold that the court’s failure to appoint counsel for Petitioner prior to September 13, 2012 constituted an abuse of discretion under HRS § 587-34 and § 587A-17. Because those statutes stated that the court may appoint an attorney to represent a legal parent who is indigent, HRS § 587A-17; see also HRS § 587-34, “discretion resided in the court as to whether to do so[.]” In re Doe, 108 Hawai'i at 153, 118 P.3d at 63 (<HOLDING>). “In reviewing a court’s exercise of
holding that guardian ad litem and psychologist fees incurred in child custody proceedings and ordered to be paid directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist were nondischargeable under  523a5 holding that a statute that provided that the court may appoint a guardian ad litem left the court with discretion to make an appointment holding that where the trial court denies a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a child support case the order is unappealable holding that trial courts failure to appoint parent an attorney ad litem in termination proceeding was reversible error holding the district court properly allowed guardian ad litem fees to be taxed as costs