In consolidated dependency appeals, the parents challenged orders finding their children dependent and placing one child in the Department’s temporary custody. The mother also argued that the juvenile court wrongly denied her request for a continuance to hire counsel of her choice. The juvenile court had considered allegations involving parental drug use, an untreated injury to one child, and the parents’ compliance with reunification requirements. The Court of Appeals vacated the dependency and disposition orders and remanded. It held that the juvenile court’s written findings did not permit adequate review of whether the statutory standards for dependency, parental unfitness, and removal had been met by clear and convincing evidence. The court also required the juvenile court to address the mother’s request for counsel under the applicable procedural rules and to make the findings necessary for any custody disposition. The decision emphasizes that the state’s authority to protect children remains bounded by mandatory statutory procedure and the heightened proof required before removing children from parental custody.