|
|
|
REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHTS TO APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT PARENTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS: (From the Indiana Civil Rights Council at: http://www.indianacrc.org/mythsandarguments.html 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...)
In:
M. L. B. v. S.
L. J., individually and as next friend of the minor children, S. L.
519 U.S. 102 (1996)
the USSC said:
"(b) This Court has also recognized a narrow category of
civil cases in which the State must provide access to its judicial processes
without regard to a party's ability to pay court fees. See, e.g., Boddie v.
Connecticut,
401 U.S. 371, 374 (divorce proceedings). Making clear,
however, that a constitutional requirement to waive court fees in civil
cases is the exception, not the general rule, the Court has refused to
extend Griffin to the broad array of civil cases. See United States v. Kras,
409 U.S. 434, 445 ; Ortwein v. Schwab,
410 U.S. 656, 661 (per curiam). But the Court has consistently
set apart from the mine run of civil cases those involving
state controls or intrusions on family relationships. In that
domain, to guard against undue official intrusion, the Court has examined
closely and contextually the importance of the governmental interest
advanced in defense of the intrusion. Pp. 8-12."
AND:
"Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.,
452 U.S. 18 (appointment of counsel for indigent
defendants in parental status termination proceedings is not routinely
required by the Constitution, but should be determined on a
case-by-case basis), and Santosky v. Kramer,
455 U.S. 745 ("clear and convincing" proof standard is constitutionally
required in parental termination proceedings)."
AND:
"While the Court declined to recognize an automatic right to appointed
counsel, it said that an appointment would be due when warranted by
the character and difficulty of the case. See Lassiter,
452 U.S., at 31 -32."
AND MORE GOOD STUFF...including some bckgrnd to reversal concerning child
support...
In:
MISSISSIPPI CHOCTAW INDIAN
BAND v. HOLYFIELD
490 U.S. 30 (1989)
the USSC said:
"Various other provisions of ICWA Title I set procedural and substantive
standards for those child custody proceedings that do take
place in state court. The procedural safeguards include requirements
concerning notice and appointment of counsel"
AND:
"Each party to the proceeding has a right to examine all
reports and documents filed with the court, and an indigent parent or
custodian has the right to appointment of counsel. 1912(b),
(c)."
AND MORE GOOD STUFF LIKE THAT...
(Note to <name redacted>: now... if the USSC says that
*only* American Indians are *entitled* to appointment of counsel in *their*
divorce proceedings, but *not* the average US citizen, wouldn't THAT be
patently discriminatory and unconstitutional???)
In:
LASSITER v. DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES
452 U.S. 18 (1981)
the USSC said:
"the right to appointed counsel is demonstrated by the Court's announcement
in In re Gault,
387 U.S. 1 , that 'the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
requires that in respect of proceedings to determine delinquency which may
result in commitment to an institution in which the juvenile's freedom is
curtailed,' the juvenile has a right to appointed counsel
even though those proceedings may be styled 'civil' and not 'criminal.' Id.,
at 41"
AND:
"Informed opinion has clearly come to hold that an indigent parent is
[452 U.S. 18, 34] entitled to the assistance of
appointed counsel not only in parental termination proceedings, but in
dependency and neglect proceedings as well."
AND:
[
Footnote 6 ] A number of courts have held that indigent parents
have a right to appointed counsel in child dependency or neglect
hearings as well. E. g., Davis v. Page, 640 F.2d 599 (CA5 1981) (en banc);
Cleaver v. Wilcox, 499 F.2d 940 (CA9 1974) (right to be decided case by
case); Smith v. Edmiston, 431 F. Supp. 941 (WD Tenn. 1977).
AND A *WHOLE* LOT OF GOOD STUFF IN THE *MULTIPLE*
DISSENTS
see also:
MELTZER v. LECRAW
402 U.S. 936 (1971)
Result?
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 very highest of all
constitutionally-protected rights... PLUS, see also
the
related collection.
|