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).
Litigation, Paternity - Petitioner or Child
In Turner v. Whitsted, 327 Md. 106, 116, 607 A.2d 935, 940 (1992), the court noted that in a paternity action:
While [the child] is not a party to the action, Rule 2-423 permits the physical examination of a party or a 'person in the custody or under the legal control of a party.' Consequently, the court might even appoint counsel to represent [the child's] interests if it believes that those interests might be compromised by the blood test. If [the child's] best interests would be jeopardized by submitting to a blood test, the child's representative may then request a protective order.
The court did not cite any particular authority for such appointment for the child, which suggests the court was relying on its inherent power to appoint.
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: yes