no exhibits for trial. It appears that the evidence at trial would have mainly consisted of Azimi's own testimony, rather than documentary evidence that might have required sustained visual concentration. 19 . McCracken v. State, 518 P.2d 85, 90 (Alaska 1974). The provision of publicly-funded counsel in some child custody, parental termination, and involuntary commitment cases is a notable exception to this rule. See, eg., AS 47.30.725(d) (providing right to counsel before involuntary commitment for mental health treatment); Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 383 (Alaska 2007) (Alaska Constitution's due process clause guarantees counsel in involuntary commitment and administration of psychotropic medication proceedings); Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893 (Alaska 1979) (<HOLDING>). 20 . Sparks v. Gustafson, 750 P.2d 338, 341
holding that a parent has a right of custody by reason of that parents ne exeat right the authority to consent before the other parent may take the child to another country holding that an indigent party has the right to courtappointed counsel in a private child custody proceeding in which the other parent is represented by counsel provided by a public agency holding that an indigent defendant cannot have a fair trial without being provided counsel holding that an indigent litigants right to appointed counsel has been recognized to exist only where she may be deprived of her physical liberty that the constitution does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in every parentalstatus termination proceeding and that the decision whether due process calls for the appointment of counsel is to be answered in the first instance by the trial court subject to appellate review holding that a defendant has right to be represented by counsel in all criminal trials for serious offenses