|
|
|
|
REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED
RIGHTS TO APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
FOR INDIGENT PARENTS
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|