Utah authorizes appointment of counsel in private termination cases
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).
03/22/2016, Legislation, Termination of Parental Rights (Private) - Birth Parents
Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-1111(2) provides that "Counsel appointed by the court may not provide representation as court-appointed counsel for a parent or legal guardian in any action initiated by, or in any proceeding to modify court orders in a proceeding initiated by, a private party", but in 2016, the Legislature added teh phrase, "except that in a private action to terminate parental rights the court may appoint counsel to represent an indigent parent if it finds that the failure to appoint counsel will result in a deprivation of due process."
Note that in Utah, "private terminations" are legally distinct proceedings from adoptions. B.W.G. v. T.G., 167 P.3d 1099, 1101 (Utah App. 2007) (stating that “As we recently explained, the Adoption Act and the juvenile code are separate, self-standing statutory schemes, and the Adoption Act does not incorporate, in wholesale fashion, the provisions of the juvenile code”). Consequently, the new provision would not apply to adoptions.
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