if at all possible, from the plain meaning of the language the General Assembly chose.” Bowling v. Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections, 301 S.W.3d 478, 490-91 (Ky.2009). To that end, “the language of the statute is to be given full effect as written.” Mohammad v. Commonwealth, 202 S.W.3d 589, 590 (Ky.2006). We believe a fair reading of KRS 625.080(3) reveals the Kentucky legislature intended to afford indigent parents the benefits of counsel during the entire course of the termination proceedings, including any appeal. This Court has interpreted KRS 625.080(3) as entitling indigent parents to counsel “throughout all [termination] proceedings.” A.P., 270 S.W.3d at 421 (emphasis added); see also R.V. v. Commonwealth, Dep’t for Health and Family Services, 242 S.W.3d 669, 672-73 (Ky.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). In Z.T. v. M.T., 258 S.W.3d 31, this Court
holding the parental rights of a child may not be terminated unless that parent has been represented by counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage recognizing that a court is not limited in what it may consider in determining whether parental rights should be terminated holding that sentencing is a critical stage of criminal proceedings and the offer of counsel must be renewed at each critical stage where the defendant appears without counsel holding that in parental termination proceedings the parent is entitled to effective assistance of counsel