Bellevue School District v. E.S.
The Washington Supreme Court heard oral argument on Jan. 19, 2010, on whether a child has a right to counsel at an initial truancy hearing. Almost exactly one year earlier, on Jan. 12, 2009, an appellate court found that due process required appointment of counsel for a 13-year-old accompanied at the hearing only by her mother, who spoke little English. (Click here for the court of appeals opinion.)
Several advocacy organizations appeared as amici in the Supreme Court. They were TeamChild and the Committee for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal Equality (CIRCLE) in Washington (click here for brief), the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia (click
here for brief), and the ACLU of Washington (click here for brief).
Under state law, a finding of truancy could lead to a finding of contempt, sanctions for which could include incarceration.In its ruling the appellate court relied heavily on the lesser capacity of children than of adults to understand legal proceedings and to advocate their own interests.
Rhine v. Deaton
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in this termination of parental rights case from Texas in which the mother was denied appointed counsel in the trial court. Before the Texas Supreme Court, which denied review, she claimed denial of equal protection and that the trial court filed to engage in a Lassiter due process analysis. The U.S. Supreme Court recently invited the Texas Solicitor General to file a response brief.
Office of Public Advocacy v. Alaska Court System
TThe Alaska Supreme Court declined to rule in this case, dismissing an appeal that arose from a custody case involving an unrepresented mother's request for appointment of counsel when her opponent was represented by a private agency. An indigent party in Alaska has a statutory right to counsel when the opponent is represented by a public agency. The American Bar Association filed an amicus brief with the supreme court in support of the mother's right to counsel; other amicus brief were those from retired Alaska judges and from legal services providers.
Originally the Alaska Court System was directed to appoint counsel to represent the mother, with the court citing the due process and equal protection clauses of Alaska's Constitution. The trial court later changed its ruling to appoint the Alaska Office of Public Advocacy to represent the mother, citing statutory and equal protection grounds. The Office of Public Advocacy appealed, and after oral argument the supreme court requested briefing on mootness. The positive trial court ruling stands, although it lacks precedential value.
Civil Right to Counsel Rulings:
King v. King, --- P.3d ----, 2007 WL 4259926
Kenny A. ex rel Winn v. Sonny Perdue, 356 F.Supp. 1353 (N.D. Ga 2005)
In re Adoption of L.T.M., 214 Ill.2d 60 (2005)
Halls v. Arden, No. 30761-8-II (Wash. Ct. App., 2005)
Kelly v. Warpinski, No. 04-2999-OA (Wis. Sup. Ct. filed Nov. 17, 2004)
Rodriguez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 120 Nev. 798 (2004)
Nicholson v. Williams, 203 F. Supp. 2d 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)
Krieger v. Com., 38 Va.App. 569 (2002)
Sholes v. Sholes, 760 N.E.2d 156 (Indiana 2001)
In re Adoption of J.D.W., 2000 WL 1156628 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000)
Joni B. v. State, 549 N.W.2d 411 (Wis. 1996)
Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co., 912 F. Supp. 1221 (D. Neb. 1995)
In re Marriage of Hartley, 886 P.2d 665 (Colorado 1995)
Campbell v. Criterion Group, 605 N.E.2d 150, 160-61 (Ind.1992)
In the Matter of K.L.J., 813 P.2d 276 (Alaska 1991)
Zockert v. Fanning, 310 Or. 514 (1990)
State ex rel. T.H. by H.H. v. Min, 802 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1990)
Matter of D.D.F., 1990 OK 89 (1990)
Quail v Municipal Court, 217 Cal.Rptr. 361 (1985)
Graves v. Adult and Family Services Div., 76 Or.App. 215 (1985)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981)
State ex rel. Heller v. Miller, 399 N.E.2d 66 (Ohio 1980)
Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893 (Alaska 1979)