at 759, 102 S.Ct. at 1398. 44 . Id. at 759, 102 S.Ct. at 1397; Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27, 31, 101 S.Ct. at 2160-61; see also M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 118, 117 S.Ct. at 565. 45 . Santosky, 455 U.S. at 766, 102 S.Ct. at 1401. 46 . Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27, 101 S.Ct. at 2160. 47 . Santosky, 455 U.S. at 760-61, 102 S.Ct. at 1398. 48 . Id. at 760-61, 102 S.Ct. at 1398. 49 . Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 161.001. 50 . See In re DM., 58 S.W.3d 801, 807 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). 51 . Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 161.001. 52 . Santosky, 455 U.S. at 766-67, 102 S.Ct. at 1402. 53 . Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 263.405. 54 . See Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 28, 101 S.Ct. at 2160. 55 . See Santosky, 455 U.S. at 761, 102 S.Ct. at 1399. 56 . Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27-32, 101 S.Ct. at 2159-62. 57 . See Tex Austin 1983, no writ) (<HOLDING>); see also In re M.I.M.L., 31 S.W.3d 347,
holding that it was reversible error for the trial court to consider cumulative error in assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard holding that regardless of harmless error standard applied the conclusion is that the trial courts failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for appointment of counsel under former section 1110a is reversible error the issues involved in the termination of parental rights are of such a serious nature that the trial courts error cannot be treated in any other way holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed