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).
Court Rule or Initiative, Civil Contempt in Family Court
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13(d)(1) states:
In the following cases, and in all other cases required by law, the court or appointing authority shall advise any party without counsel of the right to be represented throughout the case by counsel and that counsel will be appointed if the party is indigent and requests appointment of counsel. ... (B) Contempt of court proceedings in which the defendant is in jeopardy of incarceration."
However, Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13(a)(1) states, "The purposes of this rule are: (A) to provide for the appointment of counsel in all proceedings in which an indigent party has a statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel ..." The Tennessee Supreme Court has further clarified that “Rule 13 does not create rights; it merely contains the procedural mechanism for implementing them.” Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 261 (Tenn. 2007). Thus, the court found in Summers that appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings was discretionary, as per the language in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40–14–204, notwithstanding the seemingly mandatory language in the Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court 13(d)(1)(C). This suggests that the rule is not intended to itself create a right to appointed counsel, and there is no statute in Tennessee providing such a right. There are, though, some intermediate Court of Appeals constitutional rulings finding such a right, so it is possible the rule is intended to implement such rulings.
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