Discretionary appointment of counsel
Litigation, Abuse/Neglect/Dependency - Children
The Arizona Supreme Court found that as a matter of due process (it did not specify whether it meant under the state or federal constitution), an independent attorney should have been appointed for the children in a case involving temporary custody and dependency. However, the court added that "due process does not require independent counsel for children in each and every case in which they are involved. We hold today that the trial court shall appoint independent counsel, upon request of an interested party or sua sponte, where such counsel would contribute to promoting the child's best interest by serving an identifiable purpose such as advocating the child's position in the dispute or ensuring that the record be as complete and accurate as possible, or it shall state why such appointment is unnecessary."
Cite: In re Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-8545, 680 P.2d 146 (Ariz. 1984).
If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.
Appointment of Counsel: discretionary Qualified: no