Right to counsel - Child Requiring Assistance proceedings
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).
Legislation, Other subject area
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 119, § 29, indigent parents are entitled to court-appointed counsel at the dispositional phase of a "Child Requiring Assistance" proceeding if it is possible that custody of the child will be awarded to the Department of Social Services because the Department is a party. In re Hilary, 880 N.E.2d 343, 345, 346 (Mass. 2008) ("[I]f the child is subject to a permanency plan, both the parent and child are entitled to counsel and, if either the parent or child is indigent, counsel will be appointed."). If the judge is not considering removing the child from the custody of the parents, however, counsel need not be appointed for the parents.
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