Discretionary appointment of counsel
Litigation, Abuse/Neglect/Dependency - Accused Parents
In In re A.F.-C., 37 P.3d 724, 730 (Mont. 2001), the Montana Supreme Court stated, "we have not held that appointment of counsel is always 'inappropriate' or otherwise precluded during earlier stages of child protective proceedings." The Court held that the determination of whether counsel is required in dependency proceedings that "precede termination proceedings . . . must be determined in view of all of the circumstances." It then found that the mother at issue, who was also a minor and an abused/neglected youth herself, was entitled to appointed counsel for the dependency proceedings of her child.
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