Turner v. Rogers

Background

A South Carolina family court used civil contempt proceedings to enforce a $51.73 weekly child support order against Michael Turner, a noncustodial parent who repeatedly fell behind. At a January 3, 2008 hearing Turner and the custodial parent were both unrepresented. The judge found Turner in willful contempt, ordered up to 12 months’ incarceration with a chance to "purge" the contempt by paying the arrearage, but made no express finding about his ability to pay and did not use forms or follow-up questioning to develop his financial picture.

Reasoning

The Court applied a fairness test that weighs the private interest at stake, the risk of error, and governmental interests. It concluded that the Due Process Clause does not automatically require the State to provide a lawyer in these civil child-support contempt hearings when the opposing custodial parent is also unrepresented. Instead, the State must use adequate alternative procedures—clear notice that ability to pay is decisive, a way to collect financial information (for example, a form), an opportunity to contest or explain that information, and an express court finding about ability to pay. Because Turner received neither counsel nor those safeguards, his incarceration violated due process; the Court vacated the South Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The opinion allows States to continue using contempt to enforce child support without appointing lawyers in every case, but it requires courts to use procedures that fairly establish whether a parent can pay before jailing them. The Court did not decide cases where the State—not a private custodial parent—is the support recipient.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas (joined in part) dissented, arguing the Due Process Clause does not create a right to appointed counsel here and criticizing the majority for adopting an amicus-raised procedural rule the parties had not litigated.