All the justices seemed to recognize there was a failure of due process in this case, but they were reluctant to make a categorical rule requiring counsel in all such cases. Since the court only took the case to decide whether there is a right to counsel, it's unclear if the court has jurisdiction to decide anything else.Yes, I am afraid that declaring a right to counsel is not going to solve the due process problem, and the court does not have the guts to address the real problem.
An overlooked detail here is that the mom had assigned her child support benefits to the state, so that she could get more welfare benefits. The state then collects the so-called child support according to formula, which means it is a percentage of the dad's income.
So this case did not involve money going to the child. It was about throwing a man in jail for not paying income taxes to the state, and doing it without a trial.
The state has to be able to enforce its tax law, of course. If IRS or the sales tax authorities decide that you owe money, they are already pretty effective at squeezing the money out of you. They can dock your pay, seize your assets, and make your life miserable until you pay. But they do not throw you in jail without trial, as the family court does, just because of an unpaid tax debt. The family court should have no more money collection powers than IRS.