Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Turner v. Rogers

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePropertyCivil contemptDue processChild supportFourteenth Amendmentdue processcivil contempt

Facts

South Carolina enforced child support orders through civil contempt proceedings that could result in incarceration if the supporting parent was able to comply but failed to do so. Turner had repeatedly failed to make court-ordered child support payments and had previously been held in contempt several times. At the challenged hearing, neither Turner nor Rogers was represented by counsel, the hearing was brief, and Turner mentioned drug use, a back injury, and disability applications when asked if he had anything to say. The judge found Turner in willful contempt and sentenced him to 12 months in jail without making an express finding that Turner had the ability to pay and without completing the contempt form's ability-to-pay finding section.

Issue

Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause require the State to provide appointed counsel to an indigent noncustodial parent at a civil contempt hearing for child support arrears when incarceration is possible? If not, what procedural protections are required to make such a proceeding fundamentally fair?

Rule

The Due Process Clause does not automatically require a State to provide counsel to an indigent individual in a civil contempt proceeding for nonpayment of child support, even when incarceration is threatened, where the opposing parent or custodian is not represented by counsel and the State provides alternative procedural safeguards. At minimum, those safeguards include notice that ability to pay is the critical issue, a form or equivalent device to elicit relevant financial information, an opportunity at the hearing to respond to questions and statements about financial status, and an express court finding that the defendant has the ability to pay.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Arizona, a family court schedules a civil contempt hearing against Daniel Mora for unpaid child support owed to his former partner, Alina Cruz. Neither Daniel nor Alina has a lawyer. Before the hearing, the clerk serves Daniel with a notice stating that his present ability to pay is the key issue, requires him to complete a financial disclosure form, allows him to answer questions about his finances at the hearing, and the judge expressly finds that Daniel has the ability to pay before ordering incarceration unless he purges the contempt.

If Daniel argues that due process required the court to appoint counsel for him because incarceration was possible, what is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that the Due Process Clause does not automatically require counsel for an indigent child-support obligor facing incarceration in a civil contempt proceeding of this kind when the opposing parent is unrepresented and the State provides adequate alternative safeguards. Those safeguards include notice that ability to pay is critical, a form or equivalent to elicit financial information, an opportunity to respond about financial status, and an express finding of ability to pay. This hypothetical includes all of those features, so no automatic right to counsel arises. (Derived from Turner v. Rogers (n.d.).)