Turner v. Rogers

Last updated
Turner v. Rogers
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 23, 2011
Decided June 20, 2011
Full case nameMichael D. Turner v. Rebecca L. Rogers
Docket no. 10-10
Citations564 U.S. 431 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 2507; 180 L. Ed. 2d 452
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted at trial (Oconee Cty Fam. Ct.); affirmed sub nom. Price v. Turner, 387 S.C. 142, 691 S.E.2d 470 (S.C. 2010); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 1002(2010).
Holding
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, while it does not require a state to provide counsel at civil contempt proceedings to indigent individuals, even if incarceration is a possibility, does require some safeguards to prevent the erroneous deprivation of liberty. South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentThomas, joined by Scalia; Roberts, Alito (Parts I–B and II)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV

Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, relating to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that Turner was not entitled to a public defender in cases regarding family nonsupport. However, in cases in which a state is not required to provide counsel, it must provide some other safeguard to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases. The particular case the Court took under review was a child support payment case and the point of contention was the process of the defendant's income determination by the court.

Contents

Background

Michael D. Turner, the petitioner, was jailed six times between 2003 and 2010 for accumulated child support payment arrears. The duration of Turner's jail spells ranged from one day to eight months. A person being in arrears on child support payments is not unusual: in 2008, 11.2 million U.S. child support cases had arrears due. [1] The number of persons kept in jail or in prison for child support arrears is not generally tracked. Based on a publicly available collection of relevant data, an estimated 50,000 persons are kept in jail or in prison on any given day in the U.S. for child support arrears. [2] Additionally, over $100 billion in child support payments is overdue. [3]

During his most recent term in prison, Turner appealed his sentencing, claiming that he was entitled to counsel at his hearing. Before the case was heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court, however, Turner's sentence expired, and the South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently rejected the claim, distinguishing between civil contempt and criminal contempt, arguing that counsel was only required for the latter. Turner's pro bono counsel then appealed the case on Turner's behalf to the U.S. Supreme Court. [4]

Questions presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in holding—in conflict with twenty-two federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort-that an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration
  2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court. [4]

Ruling

In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court first rejected the claim of mootness by South Carolina, reasoning that the period of Turner's sentence was too short to allow for full adjudication of the sentence prior to expiration and that the likelihood of Turner being subjected to civil contempt proceedings again rendered the claim not moot (distinguishing this case from DeFunis v. Odegaard ). On the merits, Justice Breyer held that a state is under no obligation to provide a public defender to indigent respondents in civil contempt cases, especially if the plaintiff is also not represented by counsel. However, Justice Breyer noted that the South Carolina courts were under an obligation to provide an alternative procedure to ensure a fair determination of the case. Since Turner did not have clear notice that "ability to pay" would be the critical question in this proceeding, nor was he provided with information or forms that would have allowed Turner to disclose such information, the South Carolina courts erred in finding him able to pay and subsequently holding him in civil contempt. [5] Justice Breyer stated:

Third, as the Solicitor General points out, there is available a set of “substitute procedural safeguards,” Mathews, 424 U.S., at 335, 96S.Ct. 893, which, if employed together, can significantly reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty. They can do so, moreover, without incurring some of the drawbacks inherent in recognizing an automatic right to counsel. Those safeguards include (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for the defendant to respond to statements and questions about his financial status, (e.g., those triggered by his responses on the form); and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay. [6]

Justice Breyer went on to reiterate what Due Process requires in lieu of appointment of counsel in civil proceedings:

We consequently hold that the Due Process Clause does not automatically require the provision of counsel at civil contempt proceedings to an indigent individual who is subject to a child support order, even if that individual faces incarceration (for up to a year). In particular, that Clause does not require the provision of counsel where the opposing parent or other custodian (to whom support funds are owed) is not represented by counsel and the State provides alternative procedural safeguards equivalent to those we have mentioned (adequate notice of the importance of ability to pay, fair opportunity to present, and to dispute, relevant information and court findings). [7]

Thus, there must be notice to the obligor-parent that his/her ability to pay is at issue. Then there must be forms designed to elicit this information and a consideration by the court of the obligor-parent's ability to pay. After this, courts are then required to make a specific finding in child support contempt cases whether or not the obligor-parent has or had the ability to pay in order to satisfy Due Process.

However, Justice Breyer specifically declined to address whether Due Process would require the appointment of counsel in complex cases or when the state is collecting support payments overdue to the state, because in the scenario the state would be represented by counsel. Breyer seemed to recognize that the "average defendant" probably lacks the skill to adequately defend themselves. Breyer quoted from Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462–463, 58S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), stating with emphasis:

([T]he average defendant does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty, wherein the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned counsel (emphasis added)). And this kind of proceeding is not before us. Neither do we address what due process requires in an unusually complex case where a defendant can fairly be represented only by a trained advocate. [8]

Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority ruled on grounds never raised by the parties during litigation. He noted that the Fourteenth Amendment never provided for alternative safeguards to ensure that protections under the Fourteenth Amendment were not violated, and that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel only applies to criminal prosecutions and not civil cases. Thomas further argued that the majority opinion did not consider the effects of this decision with respect to child support payments, and expressed concern that the majority opinion would undermine state efforts to collect child support payments. [5]

Legacy

Because states are free to provide constitutional protections greater than those provided by the federal government under the United States Constitution, the Turner ruling did not overturn the requirements of many states that counsel be appointed for indigent litigants facing incarceration at civil contempt hearings.[ citation needed ]

The federal agency responsible for enforcing child support is the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). [9] In response to the Turner decision, OCSE responded that states should review their procedures to ensure that the proceedings are fair by giving the obligor-parents an opportunity to provide and respond to questions regarding their finances and ability to pay. The Office of Child Support Enforcement Commissioner's blog states:

As a result of the Turner v. Rogers decision, state child support agencies and courts are examining their civil contempt procedures. The goal is not to eliminate contempt procedures in cases where it may be appropriate, but instead to implement fair and cost-effective procedures that assure that families receive reliable child support payments, improve fairness and access to justice for parents without an attorney, and reduce the need for jail time. Incarceration may indeed be appropriate in those cases where noncustodial parents can afford to support their children but willfully evade their parental responsibilities by hiding income and assets. However, jail is not appropriate for noncustodial parents who do not have the means to pay their child support debts. The first step to reducing the need for contempt hearings is to set accurate child support orders. The research is clear that setting realistic orders based on actual income can actually improve compliance, increasing both the amount of child support collected and the consistency of payment. The research says that compliance falls off when orders are set above 15 to 20 percent of a noncustodial parent’s income. [10]

The decision in Turner has also provided reasoning to legal commentators who assume that incarceration for nonsupport is a civil punishment and not criminal in nature. [3] Critiques of the case's holding point to the often devastating and disparate impact of child support enforcement on poor and minority fathers and their families. [3] Scholars also argue that the Turner decision allowed state courts to relabel criminal punishments as civil ones, allowing limitation and circumvention of constitutionally mandated procedural protections. [3] Prior to this case, South Carolina established domestic relations courts that increasingly used civil contempt as opposed to criminal statutes to incarcerate debtors. [3] The "alternative procedural safeguards" advanced by the Turner majority has done little in the way of protecting indigent parents in contempt proceedings. [3]

Related Research Articles

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.

Child support is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other similar relationship. Child maintenance is paid directly or indirectly by an obligor to an obligee for the care and support of children of a relationship that has been terminated, or in some cases never existed. Often the obligor is a non-custodial parent. The obligee is typically a custodial parent, a caregiver, a guardian.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words had been added by a 1954 act of Congress that changed the phrase "one nation indivisible" into "one nation under God, indivisible". After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God", the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing en banc was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.

A public defender is a lawyer appointed to represent people who otherwise cannot reasonably afford to hire a lawyer to defend themselves in a trial. Several countries provide people with public defenders, including the UK, Hungary and Singapore, and some states of Australia. Brazil is the only country in which an office of government-paid lawyers with the specific purpose of providing full legal assistance and representation to the needy free of charge is established in the constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, requires the US government to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases. Public defenders in the United States are lawyers employed by or under contract with county, state or federal governments.

Deadbeat parent is a pejorative term referring to parents who do not fulfill their parental responsibilities, especially when they evade court-ordered child support obligations or custody arrangements. They are also referred to as absentee fathers and mothers. The gender-specific deadbeat father and deadbeat mother are commonly used to refer to people who have parented a child and intentionally fail to pay child support ordered by a family law court or statutory agency such as the Child Support Agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debtors' prison</span> Prison for people unable to repay a debt

A debtors' prison is a prison for people who are unable to pay debt. Until the mid-19th century, debtors' prisons were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe. Destitute people who were unable to pay a court-ordered judgment would be incarcerated in these prisons until they had worked off their debt via labour or secured outside funds to pay the balance. The product of their labour went towards both the costs of their incarceration and their accrued debt. Increasing access and lenience throughout the history of bankruptcy law have made prison terms for unaggravated indigence obsolete over most of the world.

In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.

In the United States, child support is the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made directly or indirectly by an "obligor" to an "obligee" for the financial care and support of children of a relationship or a marriage. The laws governing this kind of obligation vary dramatically state-by-state and tribe-by-tribe among Native Americans. Each individual state and federally recognized tribe is responsible for developing its own guidelines for determining child support.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) (1973) violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of Wisconsin to seek a court order prior to receiving a marriage license. In order to receive such a court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in arrears on his or her child support, and the court had to believe that the child(ren) would not become dependent on the State.

Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009), is a 5–4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that overruled the Court's decision in Michigan v. Jackson. The case concerned the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during a police interrogation. In reversing Jackson, the Court said such a waiver was valid.

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is a controversial amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. Passage of this law in California led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Montana under its own state constitution in 2021.

The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The British Columbia Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) is a Provincial Government service established by the British Columbia Ministry of Justice in 1988. The program monitors and enforces maintenance orders and agreements for child support and spousal support. Annually, the program assists approximately 45,000 families, 58,000 children and collects and disburses over $200 million (CAD) in maintenance payments each year.

In the United States, a public defender is a lawyer appointed by the courts and provided by the state or federal governments to represent and advise those who cannot afford to hire a private attorney. Public defenders are full-time attorneys employed by the state or federal governments. The public defender program is one of several types of criminal legal aid in the United States.

Pasqua v. Council, 892 A.2d 663 was a landmark family court decision decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 2006. The court ruled that indigent parents facing the serious threat of incarceration for nonpayment of child support were entitled to legal counsel.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.

Legal aid in Germany is "embedded in the court system and is seen as a part of this". Germany was the first country to provide free legal aid representation for the poor in 1919, and represents the archetype of the so-called judicare system.

Fant v. The City of Ferguson is a putative class action claim was filed on May 26, 2015, against the City of Ferguson, Missouri. The claims were pursuant of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where the code lays out the applicability, or lack thereof, for the legal deprivation of rights. The multiple plaintiffs claimed that the City of Ferguson had violated their constitutional rights, namely the 4th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, if a person cannot afford to pay a fine, it violates the Equal Protection Clause to convert that unpaid fine into jail time to extend a person's incarceration beyond a statutory maximum length.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States</span> Costs paid by convicted people incurred by their prosecution and incarceration

In the United States, criminal justice financial obligations (CJFOs), alternatively monetary sanctions or legal financial obligations, refers to costs paid by individuals as a result of their involvement in the criminal justice system. CJFOs consist of fines, property forfeiture, costs, fees, and victim restitution, and may also include payment for child support. They have their roots in European laws going back to the Middle Ages, and although they fell out of favor in the US in the early 19th century, regained popularity in the mid to late 20th century, to become the most common form of punishment used by the criminal justice system across the country.

References

  1. ↑ U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement, FY 2008 Annual Report to Congress, Table 73.
  2. ↑ Galbi, Douglas. "Persons in Jail or in Prison for Child-Support Debt," published Mar. 22, 2011.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Katz, Elizabeth D. (2019-09-01). "Criminal Law in a Civil Guise: The Evolution of Family Courts and Support Laws". Rochester, NY. SSRN   3168243.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. 1 2 "Turner v. Rogers - SCOTUSBlog" . Retrieved 21 June 2011.
  5. 1 2 Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011).
  6. ↑ Turner, 564 U.S. at 447-48.
  7. ↑ Turner, 564 U.S. at 448.
  8. ↑ Turner, 564 U.S. at 449.
  9. ↑ "Home - Office of Child Support Enforcement - Administration for Children and Families". hhs.gov. Retrieved August 15, 2015.
  10. ↑ "Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions". hhs.gov. Retrieved August 15, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.