and, for the RIGHT to free DNA testings and attorneys in paternity actions:
 
REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHTS TO APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR *INDIGENT* PARENTS IN VARIOUS FAMILY LAW MATTERS:
Again, every aspect of this nationwide initiative has been carefully conceived and planned for years...
The following is just a quick way of providing a glimpse into the plan.

(FROM AN EMAIL, WITH NAMES REDACTED TO PROTECT THE PARTIES' IDENTITIES...)
 
(again) In:
M. L. B. v. S. L. J. (and blah, blah...)
519 U.S. 102 (1996)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/519/102.html
the USSC said:
"see also Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 13 -17 (1981) (State must pay for blood grouping tests sought by an indigent defendant to enable him to contest a paternity suit)."
AND:
"[ Footnote 19 ] In Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 (1981), we held that the Due Process Clause required the States to provide a free blood grouping test to an indigent defendant in a paternity action. The Court observed that "[a]part from the putative father's pecuniary interest in avoiding a substantial support obligation and liberty interest threatened by the possible sanctions for noncompliance, at issue is the creation of a parent-child relationship. This Court frequently has stressed the importance of familial bonds, whether or not legitimized by marriage, and accorded them constitutional protection. Just as the termination of such bonds demands procedural fairness, so too does their imposition." Id., at 13 (citations omitted). Little's description of the interest at stake in a paternity suit seems to place it on par with the interest here."
AND:
[ Footnote 20 ] See, e.g., Zakrewski v. Fox, 87 F. 3d 1011, 1013-1014 (CA8 1996) (father's "fundamental" "liberty interest in the care, custody and management of his son has been substantially reduced by the terms of the divorce decree and Nebraska law").
[ Footnote 21 ] In Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), we referred to a divorce as the "adjustment of a fundamental human relationship." Id., at 382-383.

<name redacted>, I couldn't seem to find relevant USSC cases on the subject of right to attorney in paternity proceedings other than above (at the moment...), but here's links to INDIANA cases which uphold that right:
 
Lattimore v. Amsler
(it's a N.E.2d reporter citation, not sure at the moment...)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/11200103.jgb.html
 
Dickson v. D'Angelo
(it's a N.E.2d reporter citation, not sure at the moment...)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/06060102.ehf.html
 
AND, HOW ABOUT THIS!!! - indigent right to attorney in PROTECTIVE ORDERS!!!
Holmes v. Jones
(it's a N.E.2d reporter citation, not sure at the moment...)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/11229904.msm.html
 
AND, JUST FOR TRIVIA, the right to discovery of Guardian Ad Litem files/records...
(Several parties...)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/032503.gbh.html

Again, what is the result?
That there are seriously major arguments supporting the rights of indigent parents to have appointed counsel in family law matters, especially since the USSC has *also* consistently ruled that family (bonds/relationships/liberty interests) are amongst the highest of all constitutionally-protected rights... PLUS, see the other related collection.