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, Civil Contempt in Family Court
In Black v. Div. of Child Support Enforcement, the court held that “an indigent obligor who faces the possibility of incarceration in a State initiated civil contempt proceeding does have a due process right to court appointed counsel,” but then immediately held that “the right of a defendant to have counsel appointed should be determined on an individual case basis in accordance with the presumption announced in Lassiter . . . . [W]e adopt the Lassiter presumption but conclude that there is no basis for enlarging this prescription under Delaware constitutional standards into a fixed rule of entitlement to counsel.” Id. at 168. However, it appears the court was explaining it did not intend to provide a right to counsel where physical liberty is not threatened, since it stated that a trial judge must first determine whether a defendant faces a possibility of incarceration; if the defendant does, then “the presumption attaches and due process requires counsel be appointed for the indigent obligor.” Id. The court then added:
If after weighing these factors a court determines that, as a matter of due process and fundamental fairness, the defendant should be represented, then counsel should be appointed even if a loss of physical liberty is not threatened. In balancing the Mathews factors against the Lassiter presumption, a court should be sensitive to protecting the due process rights of the indigent defendant. Should one side of the analysis not clearly outweigh the other, the court should err on the side of appointing counsel in order to further the due process right to fundamental fairness in judicial proceedings.
Id. at 169.
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