PA Superior Court: appointed counsel must represent so long as there is a likelihood of imprisonment
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).
03/17/2021, Litigation, Civil Contempt in Family Court
In E.M.R. v. C.A.F., 2021 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 731, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a contempt order where the trial court imposed incarceration for failure to pay child support, but suspended the sanction so long as the father didn’t miss future payments. The father, pro-se at trial, was represented by appointed counsel on appeal. In its remand instructions, the Superior Court, citing Commonwealth v. Diaz, directed “[a]ppellant's appointed counsel must continue to represent Appellant as long as Appellant is indigent and the trial court continues to find a likelihood of imprisonment due to contempt.”
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: yes