Right to counsel
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is discretionary).
Legislation, Truancy - Petition Against Child
In Arizona, habitual truancy is treated as an incorrigibility matter, as per Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-803(B). In turn, Ariz. Stat. § 8-221(A) specifies that indigent children have a right to appointed counsel in such proceedings, while Ariz. Stat. § 8-221(B) specifies that the court must appoint counsel for the child regardless of indigence if the child is facing institutionalization. See also Lana A. V. Woodburn, 116 P.3d 1222, 1225-26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (interpreting Ariz. Stat. 8-221(A), which states that juvenile defendant has right to counsel in proceedings “that may result in detention”, and finding it applies to incorrigibility proceeding).
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: categorical Qualified: no