Discretionary appointment of 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 - Defendant/Respondent
In Allen v. Div. of Child Support Enforcement, 575 A.2d 1176, 1178 (Del. 1990), the court found that the balance of factors outlined in Mathews v. Eldridge weighed in favor of appointing counsel for the specific indigent litigant in the instant paternity case as a matter of due process. The court heavily relied upon Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 5 (1981), another paternity case, which was decided at the same time as Lassiter and had facts similar to those at stake in Allen (although Little did not specifically involve the right to counsel), as well as the fact that the proceedings were quasi-criminal, owing to the state's involvement. The court distinguished Blake v. Div. of Child Support Enforcement, 525 A.2d 154, 159 (Del. 1987), which held there was no right to counsel in paternity cases prior to submitting to a blood test, by noting that the plaintiff had already been subjected to blood tests that had found him to be the alleged father. Allen, 575 A.2d at 1182. Ultimately, the court held that the balance of factors outweighed the negative Lassiter presumption against counsel where physical liberty is not threatened. Id. at 1185.
Although the court's holding was limited to "the specific circumstances presented by this case", the facts in Allen would generally be the same as other paternity proceedings where a blood test supports a finding of paternity.
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