Turner v. Rogers
564 U. S. ____ (2011) (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause does not categorically require the state to provide counsel to an indigent defendant in a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support when the opposing parent is also unrepresented. However, the state must have in place alternative procedural safeguards to ensure a fundamentally fair determination of the defendant's ability to pay before incarceration is ordered.
Facts:
- A South Carolina family court ordered Michael Turner to pay Rebecca Rogers $51.73 per week in child support.
- Over a three-year period, Turner repeatedly failed to make the required payments.
- As a result of his non-payment, Turner was held in contempt on five separate occasions, serving jail time for some of them.
- After his release from a six-month sentence in 2006, Turner remained in arrears, accumulating a debt of $5,728.76.
- A civil contempt hearing was held on January 3, 2008, at which neither Turner nor Rogers was represented by counsel.
- At the hearing, Turner told the judge he had been addicted to drugs, had broken his back, and had applied for disability and SSI benefits.
- The judge did not ask follow-up questions about Turner's ability to pay and did not make an explicit finding on the record that Turner was able to pay.
Procedural Posture:
- The South Carolina family court found Michael Turner in willful contempt for failure to pay child support and sentenced him to 12 months' incarceration.
- Turner, represented by pro bono counsel, appealed the contempt order to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- After Turner had already completed his sentence, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the family court, holding that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil contempt proceedings.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Turner's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 a state to provide counsel to an indigent defendant in a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support, when that proceeding may lead to incarceration?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No, the Due Process Clause does not automatically require the provision of counsel in these specific civil contempt proceedings. However, it does require alternative procedural safeguards to ensure fundamental fairness. The Court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, weighing the private interest in liberty, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government's interests. While the defendant's liberty interest is profound, the Court found that providing counsel to one side when the other (the custodial parent) is unrepresented could create an unfair "asymmetry of representation" and unduly complicate proceedings designed to secure support for families. Instead of a categorical right to counsel, due process requires procedures that ensure an accurate determination of the defendant's ability to pay. Because Turner's hearing lacked such safeguards—he received no clear notice that ability to pay was the key issue, was not given a form to detail his finances, and the court made no explicit finding of his ability to pay—his incarceration was unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, the Due Process Clause does not provide a right to appointed counsel in civil contempt proceedings. An original understanding of the Constitution, including the Sixth Amendment, provides no basis for such a right in a non-criminal context. The majority errs by deciding the case on the grounds of "alternative procedural safeguards," an issue raised only by an amicus curiae (the United States) and not by the parties, which violates the Court's traditional practices. Furthermore, the majority's Mathews balancing test is flawed because it fails to properly account for the compelling interests of the child and custodial parent who depend on the child support payments. Civil contempt is a highly effective tool for States to compel payment from parents who might otherwise evade their responsibilities, and the majority's new procedural requirements unduly interfere with this important state function.
Analysis:
This decision creates a new constitutional floor for civil contempt proceedings related to child support. It declines to extend the categorical Sixth Amendment right to counsel from criminal cases like Gideon v. Wainwright to this civil context, thereby avoiding a major shift in state family court procedures. However, by mandating "alternative procedural safeguards," the Court establishes a due process requirement focused specifically on the defendant's ability to pay. This shifts the constitutional inquiry from whether a lawyer is present to whether the hearing's structure is fundamentally fair, ensuring that indigent parents are not incarcerated for debts they genuinely cannot pay, a practice akin to a modern debtor's prison.
