DARDEN, J.
Counsel for M.L. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s denial of the motion to appoint appellate counsel to appeal the termination of Mother’s parental relationship with I.B.
. . . .
We first note that Mother never sought counsel, i.e., she never met the initial threshold requirement of “apply[ing]” for counsel to pursue an appeal of the termination order. I.C. § 34-10-1-1. Further, even if she had applied for counsel to represent her on appeal, the trial court would have been entitled to consider “the likelihood of [her] prevailing on the merits” of such an appeal, I.C. § 34-10-1-2(c)(1); and such consideration would surely have included the fact that the evidence demonstrated Mother’s lack of interest in retaining her parental relationship and her failure to participate in the termination hearings. Finally, even if Mother had applied for representation on the appeal of the termination order, the trial court would have been within its authority to deny the assignment of counsel, given (1) her failure to make any effort – let alone a “diligent effort to obtain an attorney” for the purpose of an appeal, and (2) the unlikelihood of her “prevail[ing]” on appeal, based on the strength of the evidence presented at the termination hearing and Mother’s failure to participate in that hearing. I.C. § 34-10-1-2(d)(1), (2).
As our Supreme Court held, before the statute was amended to read as provided above, “the decision to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant in a civil case turns on the court’s assessment of the nature of the case, the genuineness of the issues, and any other factors that bear on the wisdom of mandating public funds for that purpose.” Sholes v. Sholes, 760 N.E.2d 156, 159 (Ind. 2001). To prevail on an argument that the trial court should have assigned counsel pursuant to the current statute, the “burden is on the party seeking to proceed as an indigent person to demonstrate that he meets the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel.” Maust v. Estate of Bair ex rel. Bair, 859 N.E.2d 779, 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Sholes, 760 N.E.2d at 160). Clearly Mother, who as the trial court noted has not even “requested” the appointment of counsel to appeal the termination order, (Appellant’s App. 7), has not carried her burden.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.