Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
452 U.S. 18 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the state to provide appointed counsel for indigent parents in every parental rights termination proceeding. Instead, the decision of whether to appoint counsel must be determined on a case-by-case basis by the trial court, balancing the relevant factors against a presumption that counsel is only required when the litigant faces a potential loss of physical liberty.
Facts:
- In 1975, a North Carolina court adjudicated Abby Gail Lassiter's infant son, William, a neglected child and transferred his custody to the Durham County Department of Social Services.
- A year later, Lassiter was convicted of second-degree murder and began serving a 25 to 40-year prison sentence.
- In 1978, the Department of Social Services petitioned to terminate Lassiter's parental rights.
- The Department's petition alleged that Lassiter had not had any contact with the child since December 1975 and had willfully left the child in foster care for over two consecutive years without making progress in correcting the conditions that led to the child's removal.
- Lassiter was brought from prison to the termination hearing but appeared without legal representation.
- During the hearing, a social worker testified against Lassiter, and Lassiter and her mother both testified on her behalf.
Procedural Posture:
- The Durham County Department of Social Services petitioned the District Court of Durham County, North Carolina, a trial court, to terminate Abby Gail Lassiter's parental rights.
- The trial court conducted a hearing at which Lassiter was not represented by counsel and entered an order terminating her parental rights.
- Lassiter, as appellant, appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred by not appointing counsel for her.
- The North Carolina Court of Appeals, with the Department as appellee, affirmed the trial court's order.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina summarily denied Lassiter's application for discretionary review.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider Lassiter's claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the state to appoint counsel for an indigent parent in every parental rights termination proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
No, the Due Process Clause does not require the appointment of counsel for an indigent parent in every parental termination proceeding. The Court established a presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty. This presumption must be balanced against the three factors from Mathews v. Eldridge: 1) the private interests at stake, 2) the government's interest, and 3) the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions. While a parent's interest is commanding, and the state's pecuniary interest is weak, the risk of error and complexity of the case vary. Therefore, the decision should be left to the trial court on a case-by-case basis. In this specific case, there were no allegations of neglect upon which criminal charges could be based, no expert witnesses testified, the legal issues were not complex, and the evidence against Lassiter was substantial, so the absence of counsel did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
The decision not to appoint counsel was constitutionally permissible. The purpose of a termination proceeding is not punitive but protective of the child's best interests. Given the record, including the mother's lengthy murder sentence and lack of interest in her son, the Court's narrow holding to decide the appointment of counsel on a case-by-case basis is appropriate.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
The Due Process Clause should require the appointment of counsel in every state-initiated parental rights termination proceeding. The parent's interest in the care and custody of their child is a fundamental liberty interest, and its termination is a grievous loss, comparable to the loss of physical liberty. The termination proceeding is formal, adversarial, and accusatory, creating a gross disparity in power between the state and an uncounseled parent, which leads to a substantial risk of error. A case-by-case approach is unworkable, undermines the rule of law, and improperly revives the discredited ad hoc approach of Betts v. Brady.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
The Due Process Clause requires the appointment of counsel in this type of case. The reasons for requiring counsel in a criminal case apply with equal force to a parental rights termination case, as the deprivation of parental rights is often more grievous than incarceration. This is a matter of fundamental fairness, not a cost-benefit analysis as employed in Mathews v. Eldridge. The value of protecting liberty from deprivation by the State without due process is priceless and mandates counsel.
Analysis:
This decision established that there is no absolute, per se right to appointed counsel for indigent parents in termination proceedings, distinguishing such proceedings from criminal cases where physical liberty is at stake. By adopting a case-by-case approach based on the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the Court created a flexible but less predictable standard. This places a significant burden on trial courts to evaluate the specific facts, complexity of the case, and capabilities of the parent to determine if counsel is constitutionally required, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions. The ruling represents a significant limitation on the expansion of the right to counsel in civil or quasi-civil contexts.
Unlock the full brief for Lassiter v. Department of Social Services