Turner v. Rogers

Background

A noncustodial parent (Michael Turner) was ordered to pay weekly child support and fell far behind. The family court held him in civil contempt and sentenced him to up to a year in jail without appointing a lawyer. The custodial parent and the child’s custodian appeared without counsel. Turner argued the Fourteenth Amendment required the State to provide him a lawyer at the contempt hearing.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether due process requires a lawyer in civil contempt hearings that can lead to jail. It said the Constitution does not automatically require appointed counsel in every such case. Instead, the Court looked for procedures that fairly decide the key question: whether the supporting parent actually has the ability to pay. The Court held that if the State provides clear alternative safeguards, it need not provide counsel when the opposing parent is unrepresented.

Real world impact

The decision allows States to continue using civil contempt to enforce child support without automatically providing a lawyer in every case. But courts must use safeguards — notice about ability-to-pay, a form or similar process to collect financial facts, an opportunity to respond, and an express finding about ability to pay — to avoid wrongful incarceration. Because Turner got no lawyer and the court failed to apply these safeguards, his incarceration violated due process and the Court vacated the judgment.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas (joined in parts by others) disagreed with the majority’s new focus on alternative procedures. He would have affirmed, arguing the Due Process Clause does not create a general right to appointed counsel in these civil contempt cases.