---

"(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."

"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)."

"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...

 

"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"

"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...

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"

"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."

[ 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: