Is a defendant in a paternity proceeding entitled to appointed counsel?

Defendant acknowledges the general rule that a party in a civil proceeding is not entitled to appointed counsel. However, he argues that his case falls under the exception to that general rule set forth in Salas v. Cortez (1979) 24 Cal.3d 22, 154 Cal.Rptr. 529, 593 P.2d 226. In that case, the court held that indigent defendants in paternity proceedings prosecuted by the state were constitutionally entitled to appointed counsel. The court stated that when determining whether due process requires the appointment of counsel in a particular case, the court "must examine the nature and magnitude of the interests involved, the possible consequences of the interests involved, the possible consequences appellants face and the features which distinguish [the present] proceedings from other civil proceedings. These factors must then be balanced against the state's interests." (Id. at p. 27, 154 Cal.Rptr. 529, 593 P.2d 226.)