Title: Liming v. Damos

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Liming v. Damos, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4783.] 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-4783 
LIMING, APPELLANT, v. DAMOS; ATHENS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Liming v. Damos, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4783.] 
Contempt—Civil and criminal contempt—Purge hearing is civil in nature if 
original contempt sanction was civil—Due process—Indigent parent has 
no right to appointed counsel at purge hearing when parent was 
represented by counsel at original civil contempt hearing. 
(Nos. 2011-1170 and 2011-1985—Submitted May 23, 2012—Decided  
October 24, 2012.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Athens County,  
No. 10CA39, 2011-Ohio-2726. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
1.  A hearing to determine whether a contemnor has purged himself of civil 
contempt (a “purge hearing”) is a civil proceeding. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
2.  The Due Process Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions do not 
guarantee an indigent parent the right to appointed counsel at a civil-
contempt purge hearing. 
__________________ 
 
LANZINGER, J. 
{¶ 1} In this case, we must determine whether an indigent parent, whose 
sentence for civil contempt at a previous hearing for failure to pay child support 
was suspended on condition that he comply with his child-support obligations for 
a year, has a right to appointed counsel at a subsequent hearing on a motion to 
impose the suspended sentence due to noncompliance with the conditions.  We 
hold that the subsequent hearing retains the civil nature of the original civil 
contempt proceeding and that therefore, due process does not require that an 
indigent parent be provided with appointed counsel. 
I.  Factual Background 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Michael Liming, married Denday Damos on August 8, 
1993.  The couple had two children.  They were divorced on January 19, 2005.  
Although Liming had been ordered to pay monthly child support, a stipulation 
was entered that due to Liming’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing, the support 
obligation would be lifted during the bankruptcy proceedings.  The divorce decree 
noted this stipulated deviation and named the mother legal custodian and 
residential parent. 
{¶ 3} On April 30, 2007, appellee, Athens County Child Support 
Enforcement Agency (“the agency”) filed a motion to modify Liming’s child-
support obligation.  Finding that the mother had been granted relief from the 
bankruptcy stay to determine and collect child support, the magistrate 
recommended that the trial court order Liming to begin payments effective June 
5, 2007, the date on which the relief from stay was granted.  The trial court 
January Term, 2012 
3 
adopted the magistrate’s decision and ordered Liming to pay current child support 
with an additional sum per month to address the arrearage. 
{¶ 4} Approximately six months later, the agency filed a motion for 
contempt based on Liming’s failure to comply with the child-support order.  The 
magistrate conducted a hearing in October 2008, at which Liming was present and 
represented by an attorney. The magistrate recommended that the court hold 
Liming in contempt and sentence him to 30 days in jail with the term suspended 
as long as he paid his full monthly current support and arrearage payments and 
complied with other conditions for one year.  The contempt would be considered 
purged as long as Liming remained in compliance.  No objections were filed, and 
the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision on November 12, 2008.  Liming 
did not appeal. 
{¶ 5} The following September, the agency filed a motion to impose 
sentence for Liming’s failure to comply with the seek-work program, to report 
employment changes to the agency, and to pay child support. While the motion 
was pending, the magistrate conducted a hearing on the mother’s objections to the 
Agency’s proposed administrative modification of Liming’s monthly child-
support obligation. The divorced couple was present at the hearing, but neither 
was represented by counsel.  The magistrate recommended that Liming’s monthly 
child-support and arrearage payments be reduced. The trial court adopted the 
magistrate’s decision on June 3, 2010, after no further objections were filed. 
{¶ 6} With respect to the contempt sanction, the trial court held a hearing 
on the motion to impose sentence (“purge hearing”) on June 14, 2010.  Liming’s 
request at the outset that a public defender be appointed to represent him was 
denied.  The court found that after the November 2008 contempt order,  Liming 
failed to make child-support and arrearage payments for the months of March, 
May, August, October, and December 2009 and also failed to pay any amount 
toward his arrearage in the first five months of 2010.  The court imposed ten days 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
of the 30-day jail term, suspending the remaining 20 on the condition that for one 
year Liming fully comply with the conditions and requirements of the June 3, 
2010 judgment entry, which had reduced his monthly child-support and arrearage 
obligations. 
{¶ 7} On appeal, Liming relied on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the United States Constitution and on the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 
10 and 16 to argue that his right to counsel was violated when the court refused to 
appoint counsel for him at a hearing that was criminal in nature because a jail 
sentence was imposed.  Liming v. Damos, 4th Dist. No. 10CA39, 2011-Ohio-
2726.  The Fourth District, however, determined that the original contempt 
hearing against Liming was civil in nature.  It then held that the enforcement of 
Liming’s sentence did not convert the purge hearing into a criminal contempt 
proceeding.  Instead, the appellate court concluded that the purge hearing retained 
the civil character of the original contempt proceeding, and therefore, the Sixth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, 
Section 10 did not apply. 
{¶ 8} The Fourth District then addressed whether Liming had a due 
process right to counsel and applied the three-factor test in Mathews v. Eldridge, 
424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).  After considering Liming’s 
diminished liberty interest at the purge hearing, the low risk of an erroneous 
decision, and the cost to the government of providing appointed counsel, the court 
of appeals declined to create a categorical rule that indigent parties previously 
represented by counsel at a contempt hearing have a due process right to 
appointed counsel at later purge hearings. 
{¶ 9} The Fourth District found that its decision conflicted with the 
decision of the Sixth District in Samantha N. v. Lee A.R., 6th Dist. Nos. E-00-036 
and E-00-037 (Feb. 16, 2001).  We recognized that a conflict exists.  130 Ohio 
January Term, 2012 
5 
St.3d 1492, 2011-Ohio-6556, 958 N.E.2d 956.  We also accepted the 
discretionary appeal.  130 Ohio St.3d 1493, 2011-Ohio-6556, 958 N.E.2d 956. 
II.  Legal Analysis 
A.  Civil v. Criminal Contempt 
{¶ 10} The certified question in this case asks: “Is a purge hearing to 
impose a suspended sentence for failing to pay child support a civil or criminal 
proceeding?”  130 Ohio St.3d 1492, 2011-Ohio-6556, 958 N.E.2d 956.  The 
question is more complex than it first appears. 
{¶ 11} In general, “[p]roceedings in contempt are sui generis in the law.  
They bear some resemblance to suits in equity, to criminal proceedings and to 
ordinary civil actions; but they are none of these.”  Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist. 
Council 51, 35 Ohio St.2d 197, 201-202, 299 N.E.2d 686 (1973).  Although the 
distinction between civil and criminal contempt is often murky, it is important.  
See Internatl. Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827, 
114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994).  A party subject to criminal contempt is 
afforded many of the same constitutional safeguards that a defendant in a criminal 
trial enjoys.  United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 
L.Ed.2d 556 (1993).  For instance, the burden of proof in criminal contempt is 
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 
U.S. 418, 444, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911).  More relevant in this case, a 
person subject to criminal contempt has the right to counsel.  Cooke v. United 
States, 267 U.S. 517, 537, 45 S.Ct. 390, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925). 
{¶ 12} Because all contempt involves some type of sanction or 
punishment, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is usually based 
on the purpose to be served by the sanction.  State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio 
St.3d 551, 554, 740 N.E.2d 265 (2001).  If the sanction is remedial or coercive 
and for the benefit of the complainant rather than the court, the contempt 
proceeding is usually classified as civil.  Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
St.2d 250, 253, 416 N.E.2d 610 (1980).  Often, civil contempt is characterized by 
conditional sanctions, i.e., the contemnor is jailed until he or she complies with 
the court order.  Id.  On the other hand, criminal contempt is usually characterized 
by unconditional prison terms or fines.  Id. at 253-254.  The purposes behind the 
sanction in criminal contempt are primarily to punish the contemnor and to 
vindicate the authority of the court.  Id. at 254.  To determine the purpose of the 
sentencing court, the entire record must be reviewed.  State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio 
St.2d 201, 206, 400 N.E.2d 386 (1980) (the trial court’s sanction does not dispose 
of the issue whether contempt is civil or criminal in nature; rather, it is some 
evidence of what was sought to be accomplished). 
{¶ 13} There is no dispute that Liming’s original 2008 contempt 
proceeding was civil in nature.  Although he was sentenced to 30 days in jail for 
failing to pay child support, the trial court suspended that term and ordered that he 
could purge the contempt if he complied with several conditions for one year.  
There was no evidence in the record that the trial court’s sentence was meant to 
be punitive. To the contrary, Liming was given the opportunity to purge the 
contempt by making payments, and the payments benefitted the mother—facts 
characteristic of civil contempt.  This case arose because the agency alleged that 
Liming had failed to comply with those purge conditions. 
{¶ 14} Liming contends that the latest sanction of ten days’ incarceration 
with the remaining 20 days stayed on condition that he comply with the child-
support order from June 2010 was a hybrid of civil and criminal contempt.  
According to Liming, the part of the sanction that remained suspended with purge 
conditions was civil in nature, but the unconditional ten-day sentence was 
criminal and, therefore, he had a right to appointed counsel. 
{¶ 15} This court has previously recognized that a contempt sanction can 
be both civil and criminal.  Brown, 64 Ohio St.2d 250, 416 N.E.2d 610.  In 
Brown, one of the contemnors was sentenced to ten days, seven of which could be 
January Term, 2012 
7 
purged.  The court of appeals had held that the contempt was criminal in nature 
and reversed the judgment because the trial court had used the clear-and-
convincing standard.  We reinstated a portion of the sentence, determining that 
because seven days of the ten-day sentence could be purged, that portion was civil 
in nature.  Id. at 255.  The unconditional three days, however, were criminal, and 
the case was remanded to the trial court.  Id.  Nevertheless, Brown is 
distinguishable, as it concerned an initial contempt proceeding rather than a purge 
hearing.  The two hearings are distinct. 
{¶ 16} A purge hearing is not a new contempt proceeding but a conclusion 
of the originating contempt hearing, because its purpose is to determine whether 
the contemnor has satisfied the purge conditions.  If the conditions are unfulfilled, 
the court is entitled to enforce the sentence already imposed, the sanction that 
could have been avoided by the contemnor’s compliance.  With respect to cases 
of child support, an indigent parent has already enjoyed a number of procedural 
safeguards by this point.  For example, the initial contempt charge must be in 
writing, and the parent must be provided a hearing.  R.C. 2705.03.  The notice of 
hearing must also be accompanied by a summons that includes notice that failure 
to appear may result in arrest or an order withholding assets, notice of the right to 
counsel if the parent is indigent and of the need to apply for counsel within three 
business days of receipt of the summons, notice that the court may refuse to grant 
a continuance to obtain counsel, and notice of the potential penalties if the parent 
is found in contempt.  R.C. 2705.031(C)(1) through (4).  These protections for the 
parent help ensure that the issue of contempt is correctly decided.  The only issue 
left for the purge hearing is whether the contemnor complied with the purge 
requirements. 
{¶ 17} So while it is true that Liming could no longer purge the ten-day 
sentence imposed in June 2010, this was not a new sentence or a new punishment.  
Liming had “held the keys” to the jailhouse door for over a year by the time the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
purge hearing was conducted, but he had not fully complied with the November 
2008 contempt order.  It also appears that the trial court was still trying to obtain 
Liming’s compliance with his child-support obligations.  Although the order is 
more coercive because Liming was ordered to serve ten of the 30 days the court 
had previously suspended, it nonetheless serves as an incentive for future 
compliance if Liming wishes to avoid serving the remaining 20 days. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we agree with the Fourth District and answer the 
certified question by holding that if the original contempt sanction is civil, a purge 
hearing retains the civil nature of that proceeding. 
B.  Inability to Pay Is a Defense to Contempt 
{¶ 19} In his second proposition of law, Liming proposes another reason 
why the contempt proceeding against him should be classified as criminal.  He 
contends that when it is impossible for an indigent contemnor to comply with a 
purge order, the purge hearing is criminal in nature, and the contemnor is entitled 
to court-appointed representation.  Liming argues that the trial court was obligated 
to determine whether he was able to pay child support as ordered by the court and 
failed to do so.  We reject this argument. 
{¶ 20} It has long been held that in a contempt proceeding, inability to pay 
is a defense and the burden of proving the inability is on the party subject to the 
contempt order.  State ex rel. Cook v. Cook, 66 Ohio St. 566, 570, 64 N.E. 567 
(1902).  The order of the trial court fixing the amount to be paid and a party’s 
failure to comply with that order serve as prima facie evidence of contempt.  Id.  
The presumption in favor of ability to pay arises in this case not just from the 
judgment entry establishing the amount of child support but also from Liming’s 
failure to object to or appeal from that order.  See Bly v. Smith, 94 Ohio St. 110, 
114, 113 N.E. 659 (1916).  Placing the burden of showing inability to pay on the 
party charged with contempt is not unreasonable.  As we explained in Cook, 
“[t]he defendant’s financial condition and ability to pay were peculiarly within his 
January Term, 2012 
9 
own knowledge.  They could not be known with the same certainty to the 
complainant, nor could she easily produce evidence to maintain the proposition 
were the burden of proof placed upon her.”  Id. at 571; see also Hicks v. Feiock, 
485 U.S. 624, 637-638, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988) (placing the 
burden of proof on the contemnor regarding the ability to pay is constitutionally 
valid in civil contempt proceedings). 
{¶ 21} At the hearing on the motion to impose the suspended sentence, 
Liming did not offer any evidence of his inability to pay.  He questioned why the 
agency had not submitted his arrearage amount to the bankruptcy court for 
payment before his discharge, but he readily acknowledged that he owed the 
arrearage.  Liming made bare assertions that he was unable to make the monthly 
child-support and arrearage payments as originally ordered by the trial court in 
2008, but he said he believed that he could handle the reduced amounts in the 
June 2010 judgment entry.1  His statements, however, are insufficient to satisfy 
his burden of proof on this issue.  See United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 725 
(11th Cir.1984), citing United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757, 103 S.Ct. 
1548, 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983) (respondent must go beyond a mere assertion of 
inability and satisfy his burden of production on the point by introducing evidence 
in support of his claim). 
{¶ 22} Liming argues that his dire financial situation was so obvious that 
the agency even moved to reduce his monthly obligation and that he was in 
bankruptcy throughout the support proceedings.  Nothing in the record verifies 
who initiated the administrative review.  Moreover, Liming’s statement that he 
was in bankruptcy is inaccurate.  Liming’s bankruptcy proceedings had long been 
over.  His discharge occurred in August 2008, before the original contempt 
                                          
 
1. To the extent that Liming argues that the reduction of the monthly child-support and arrearage 
obligations that the trial court ordered in June 2010 is some evidence of inability to pay, we note 
that there is nothing in the record of what occurred during the administrative review conducted by 
the agency in January 2010 or the hearing on objections before the magistrate in April 2010. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
proceeding, a proceeding at which Liming was represented by counsel and to 
which he did not file objections.  Liming’s bankruptcy proceeding is not evidence 
of his inability to pay his monthly child-support and arrearage obligations in 2009 
and 2010. 
{¶ 23} Based on the evidence before the trial court, the agency established 
that Liming had not met his purge conditions.  Because he had the burden of proof 
and failed to produce evidence of inability to pay, the trial court’s failure to 
expressly find that he had the ability to pay did not convert the purge hearing into 
a criminal proceeding.  Therefore, the right to counsel under the Sixth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Ohio Constitution, 
Article I, Section 10  did not apply. 
C.  Due Process Right to Counsel 
{¶ 24} Having determined that a purge hearing retains the civil nature of 
the original civil-contempt proceeding, we now must decide whether the Due 
Process Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions require the 
appointment of counsel for indigent parents in civil-contempt proceedings for 
failure to pay child support.  The United States Supreme Court recently addressed 
a similar issue.  Turner v. Rogers, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2507, 180 L.Ed.2d 452 
(2011). 
{¶ 25} In Turner, a South Carolina man who had previously been held in 
contempt five times for failure to pay child support was sentenced to 12 months’ 
incarceration following a new show-cause hearing on his arrearage.  The trial 
court ordered that the father could purge himself of contempt and avoid the 
sentence by having a zero balance on or before his release.  The Supreme Court 
identified the issue before it as “whether the Due Process Clause grants an 
indigent defendant, such as Turner, a right to state-appointed counsel at a civil 
contempt proceeding, which may lead to his incarceration.”  Id. at 2515-2516.  
January Term, 2012 
11 
{¶ 26} After noting cases in which it found that a due process right to 
counsel for civil proceedings existed2 and cases in which it did not,3 the Supreme 
Court stated: “We believe those statements are best read as pointing out that the 
Court previously had found a right to counsel ‘only’ in cases involving 
incarceration, not that a right to counsel exists in all such cases.”  (Emphasis sic.)  
Id. at 2517. 
{¶ 27} Although the loss of personal liberty through imprisonment is an 
important consideration, the Supreme Court nonetheless found that other factors 
outweigh that private interest and held 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). 
 
                                          
 
2. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (juvenile delinquency); Vitek v. 
Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) (transfer of prison inmate to state 
hospital for mentally ill); Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 
2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (termination of parental rights). 
 
3. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (probation 
revocation); Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25, 96 S.Ct. 1281, 47 L.Ed.2d 556 (1976) (summary 
court-martial). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
(Emphasis sic.)  Id. at 2520.  The Turner dissent was even more emphatic that the 
Due Process Clause does not provide a right to appointed counsel for indigent 
defendants facing incarceration in civil contempt proceedings.  It reasoned that 
 
if the Due Process Clause created a right to appointed counsel in 
all proceedings with the potential for detention, then the Sixth 
Amendment right to appointed counsel would be unnecessary.  
* * * The Sixth Amendment, however, is the only constitutional 
provision that even mentions the assistance of counsel; the Due 
Process Clause says nothing about counsel.  Ordinarily, we do not 
read a general provision to render a specific one superfluous. 
 
Id. at 2522 (Thomas, J., dissenting). 
{¶ 28} While Turner is instructive, it does not answer the precise question 
before us, as we are not concerned with due process rights for the initial contempt 
proceeding but rather for the purge hearing.  Because due process requires a 
fundamentally fair proceeding, we will employ the Mathews v. Eldridge test used 
by the court of appeals to determine whether there is a constitutional right to 
counsel for a purge hearing that is civil in nature.  The factors to be considered 
include (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action, (2) the 
risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used  and 
the probable value of additional or different procedural safeguards, and (3) the 
government’s interest, including the fiscal or administrative burdens of providing 
additional or substitute procedural requirements.  Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 
S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18. 
{¶ 29} As in Turner, the private interest involved here is the loss of 
personal liberty through imprisonment.  Unlike the father in Turner, however, 
Liming’s personal liberty was already conditioned on his continued compliance 
January Term, 2012 
13 
with the purge conditions.  An indigent parent’s right to appointed counsel 
diminishes as his interest in personal liberty also diminishes.  Lassiter v. Dept. of 
Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18, 26, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 
(1981).  This diminished personal-liberty interest has been previously recognized 
by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to parolees and probationers when 
considering whether due process applies to parole- or probation-revocation 
hearings.  Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 
(1972); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).  
In Morrissey the court observed, “Revocation [of parole] deprives an individual, 
not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the 
conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole 
restrictions.”  Id. at 480.  Like a probationer or parolee, Liming’s continued 
freedom was conditioned on his compliance with his purge requirements; 
therefore, his personal-liberty interest was a diminished one. 
{¶ 30} The second Mathews factor evaluates the risk that the procedure 
will lead to an erroneous decision.  We believe that this is highly unlikely for 
purge hearings.  To start, the nature and scope of a purge hearing are 
straightforward and limited.  The issue of contempt—whether a parent has failed 
to pay child support as ordered—will have already been decided at the initial 
proceeding for which the parent will have been given notice of the hearing date, 
the right to counsel if indigent, and the potential penalties.  R.C. 2705.031(C).  At 
that initial contempt hearing, the parent will have had the opportunity to defend 
against the contempt charges and otherwise object to or appeal from a finding of 
contempt and any purge conditions.  Because the propriety of the contempt 
finding or the purge conditions is not in question at a purge hearing, the only issue 
for the court to decide is whether the parent complied with those conditions.  In 
this case, Liming was represented by an attorney at the contempt hearing in 
October 2008.  Neither he nor his counsel objected to the magistrate’s decision or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
otherwise appeal the contempt order.  The only issue that Liming needed to be 
prepared to address at the purge hearing was whether he had complied with the 
conditions.  The risk of the court’s reaching an erroneous decision at the purge 
hearing, therefore, was minimal. 
{¶ 31} The final Mathew factor is the government’s interest and the fiscal 
or administrative burdens of providing additional or substitute procedural 
requirements.  The government has a strong interest in ensuring that parents 
financially support their children and in resolving these matters as quickly as 
possible.  Otherwise, the state may have to step in and provide aid.  Moreover, 
requiring the court to appoint counsel in every case in which there is the potential 
that the contemnor will be incarcerated for violating the purge conditions would 
add significant fiscal and administrative burdens on the state. 
{¶ 32} In light of Liming’s diminished personal-liberty interest, the low 
risk of an erroneous decision, and the strength of the government’s interest, we 
conclude that the factors weigh against requiring the state to provide indigent 
parents with counsel at civil-contempt purge hearings.  We therefore hold that the 
Due Process Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions do not require 
that an indigent parent has the right to appointed counsel at a purge hearing, when 
that parent was previously represented by counsel at the originating civil-
contempt proceeding. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 33} Because a purge hearing does not amount to a new contempt 
proceeding, we answer the certified question by holding that a hearing to 
determine whether a contemnor has purged himself of civil contempt is a civil 
proceeding. We also hold that the Due Process Clauses of the Ohio and United 
States Constitutions do not guarantee an indigent parent the right to appointed 
counsel at a civil-contempt purge hearing. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
15 
{¶ 34} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, 
JJ., concur.   
PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 35} In this appeal, we are confronted with the issue whether an indigent 
contemnor facing incarceration for failure to comply with the purge conditions of 
a contempt order based on nonpayment of child support has a right to counsel.  I 
respectfully dissent from the view of the majority because I believe that a trial 
court must hold a hearing to determine the contemnor’s ability to pay and appoint 
counsel for an indigent before imposing incarceration. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 36} On September 11, 2008, the Athens County Child Enforcement 
Agency filed a motion for contempt pursuant to R.C. 2705.031 against Liming, 
alleging that he failed to comply with an order of the court dated January 11, 2008 
regarding payment of child support. 
{¶ 37} On October 15, 2008, a juvenile court magistrate held a hearing.  
Liming at that time was represented by counsel, and a staff attorney represented 
the child enforcement agency.  The magistrate issued a decision recommending 
that the court find Liming in contempt and sentence him to 30 days in jail, which 
could be purged if Liming complied with certain payment and other conditions set 
forth in the recommendation.  Subsequent to that hearing, counsel for Liming 
withdrew. 
{¶ 38} None of the parties objected to the magistrate’s recommendation 
and the court adopted it on November 12, 2008. 
{¶ 39} On September 15, 2009, the agency moved to impose the jail 
sentence because Liming had failed to comply with the conditions set forth in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
November 2008 order.  On June 14, 2010, the court held a hearing on that motion, 
and Liming requested court-appointed counsel.  The court denied his request, and 
on July 28, 2010, imposed ten days of the original 30-day jail sentence but 
suspended the remaining 20 days on condition that Liming comply with an order 
entered June 3, 2010, which decreased his monthly child-support payments.  The 
court issued that entry in response to an administrative review by the agency, but 
the downward modification set forth in the entry had no bearing on the finding of 
contempt or the alleged inability of Liming to purge that contempt. 
{¶ 40} On August 11, 2010, an attorney employed by the Ohio Public 
Defender filed a notice of appeal in the Fourth District Court of Appeals on behalf 
of Liming, as well as an affidavit of indigency and a motion for appointment of 
appellate counsel.  In an entry dated September 21, 2010, the juvenile court 
granted that motion, appointing counsel and ordering the transcript of the June 14, 
2010 hearing be prepared at state expense. 
{¶ 41} On appeal, Liming relied on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the United States Constitution and on the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 
10 and 16, asserting that he had a right to appointed counsel at the purge hearing.  
The court of appeals rejected the Sixth Amendment argument because the purge 
hearing “retained the civil character of the original contempt proceeding” and 
“did not constitute a criminal prosecution.”  Liming v. Damos, 4th Dist. No. 
10CA39, 2011-Ohio-2726, at ¶ 14.  With respect to his argument involving the 
Fourteenth Amendment, the court of appeals applied a due process analysis 
established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 
(1976), and concluded that Liming did not have a procedural due process right to 
counsel. 
Due Process 
{¶ 42} “Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the 
liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action.”  
January Term, 2012 
17 
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992).  
A governmental action that infringes upon this freedom “constitutes a significant 
deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection."  Addington v. Texas, 
441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979). 
{¶ 43} To determine whether a governmental action satisfies the dictates 
of procedural due process, the Supreme Court established an analysis in Mathews 
v. Eldridge that requires the balancing of three competing factors: (1) the private 
interest affected by the governmental action, (2) the risk of an erroneous 
deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value of 
additional or different procedural safeguards, and (3) the governmental interest at 
stake, including the fiscal or administrative burdens of providing additional or 
substitute procedural requirements.  424 U.S. at 334-335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 
L.Ed.2d 18. 
{¶ 44} The Supreme Court recently applied that analysis to determine 
“whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the State to 
provide counsel (at a civil contempt hearing) to an indigent person potentially 
faced with such incarceration.”  (Emphasis sic.) Turner v. Rogers, ___U.S.___, 
131 S.Ct. 2507, 2512, 180 L.Ed.2d 452 (2011).  In that case, a South Carolina 
court found Turner, an indigent parent who had not been appointed counsel, in 
contempt of a previous child-support order and sentenced him to 12 months of 
incarceration.  The Supreme Court held that “the Due Process Claus 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” (emphasis sic), id. at 2520, but attached the caveat that “the 
State must nonetheless have in place alternative procedures that assure a 
fundamentally fair determination of the critical incarceration-related question, 
whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the support order.”  Id. at 
2512. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
{¶ 45} The court regarded the following examples as sufficient safeguards 
for purposes of due process: 
 
(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. 
 
Id. at 2519. 
{¶ 46} In the instant case, the agency filed a motion for contempt pursuant 
to R.C. 2705.031.  As required by that statute, the summons contained safeguards 
listed in Turner, including “[n]otice that the accused has a right to counsel, and 
that if indigent, the accused must apply for a public defender or court appointed 
counsel within three business days after receipt of the summons.”  R.C. 
2705.031(C)(2).  A proceeding pursuant to this statute is civil and allows a 
contemnor to purge by payment of the arrearage.  Due to its civil nature, the 
proceedings provide a contemnor with “fewer procedural protections than in a 
criminal case.”  Turner at 2516. 
{¶ 47} The right to counsel in a contempt proceeding does not turn on the 
civil label attached, but rather on whether the procedure satisfies the specific 
dictates of due process prescribed by Mathews.  Id.  The starting point of this 
analysis required the court to determine whether Liming qualified as indigent, 
which it did not do.  Assuming indigency, balancing the three competing factors 
set forth in Mathews compels me to conclude that the court violated Liming’s 
right to procedural due process when it denied his request for appointed counsel. 
January Term, 2012 
19 
{¶ 48} First, the private interest affected by the governmental action 
weighs heavily in favor of the right to counsel.  Here, the interest at stake in 
Liming’s purge hearing consisted of his personal freedom, and the threatened loss 
of that liberty through imprisonment demanded due process protection.  Id., 
___U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. at 2518, 180 L.Ed.2d 452.  Although Liming had a 
diminished liberty interest, if truly indigent, he did not “hold the keys to the 
jailhouse door.”  As explained by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Walker v. 
McLain: 
 
 
It is true that the defendant's right to appointed counsel 
diminishes as his interest in personal liberty diminishes.  However, 
petitioner's liberty interest cannot truly be viewed as conditional.  
If petitioner is truly indigent, his liberty interest is no more 
conditional than if he were serving a criminal sentence; he does not 
have the keys to the prison door if he cannot afford the price.  The 
fact that he should not have been jailed if he is truly indigent only 
highlights the need for counsel, for the assistance of a lawyer 
would have greatly aided him in establishing his indigency and 
ensuring that he was not improperly incarcerated.  The argument 
that the petitioner has the keys to the jailhouse door does not apply 
to diminish petitioner's liberty interest. 
 
(Emphasis added and citation omitted.)  Id., 768 F.2d 1181, 1184 (10th Cir.1985). 
{¶ 49} In the case of an indigent parent, the opportunity to purge a finding 
of contempt made pursuant to R.C. 2705.031 is illusory.  For purposes of 
determining a right to counsel, there is no real difference  between an initial 
contempt hearing and a subsequent purge hearing, because both proceedings are 
part of a single contempt action.  Further, the inability of an indigent parent to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
comply with the purge conditions of the contempt order renders imprisonment a 
substantial certainty, thereby virtually guaranteeing the loss of personal liberty.  
Thus, given the requirement in R.C. 2705.031 that an indigent contemnor be 
provided with notice of the right to counsel when a contempt action is filed, the 
express acknowledgement by the majority that “[a] purge hearing is not a new 
contempt proceeding but a conclusion of the originating contempt hearing,” 
highlights the fallacy of even making this distinction. 
{¶ 50} Regarding the second factor, contrary to the view of the majority, 
the purge hearing carried with it a high risk of an erroneous determination.  The 
Supreme Court noted in Turner, “[g]iven the importance of the interest at stake, it 
is obviously important to assure accurate decision-making in respect to the key 
‘ability to pay’ question.”  Turner, ___U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. at 2518, 180 L.Ed.2d 
452.  The need for accuracy is further underscored by the fact that “ability to 
comply marks a dividing line between civil and criminal contempt.”  Id., citing 
Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 635, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988), fn. 7.  
Indeed, as one court explained: 
 
When an indigent litigant is forced to proceed at an ability-
to-pay hearing without counsel, there is a high risk of an erroneous 
determination and wrongful incarceration. However seemingly 
simple support enforcement proceedings may be for a judge or 
lawyer, gathering documentary evidence, presenting testimony, 
marshalling legal arguments, and articulating a defense are 
probably awesome and perhaps insuperable undertakings to the 
uninitiated layperson. The task is that much more difficult when 
the indigent must defend himself after he has already been 
deprived of his freedom.  See, e.g., Walker, supra, 768 F.2d at 
1184 ("The issues in a proceeding for wilful nonsupport are not so 
January Term, 2012 
21 
straightforward that counsel will not be of assistance in insuring 
the accuracy and fairness of the proceeding. This is particularly 
true where the petitioner is indigent and is attempting to prove his 
indigency as a defense to wilfulness."). 
 
Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 145, 892 A.2d 663 (2006). 
{¶ 51} In this case, Liming claimed indigency at the purge hearing and 
bore the burden of proving the defense of inability to pay.  The court denied his 
request for the appointment of counsel, the purpose of which is to aid in providing 
that defense, and did so without first determining if Liming qualified as indigent.  
The failure of the court to make “an express finding” regarding ability to pay 
constituted a deficiency of a critical safeguard noted in Turner.  Id. at 2519; see 
also id. at 2518-2519 (“the critical question likely at issue in these cases concerns, 
as we have said, the defendant’s ability to pay.  That question is often closely 
related to the question of the defendant’s indigence”).  In addition, within weeks 
of denying the request by Liming at the purge hearing to appoint him counsel, 
when the risk of the deprivation of his liberty interest came to fruition, the 
juvenile court granted his motion for the appointment of appellate counsel based 
on his affidavit of indigency.  The irreconcilable nature of these actions 
emphasizes the risk factor associated with an erroneous deprivation of interests. 
{¶ 52} Lastly, I concur in the assessment of the majority that the 
government has an interest in ensuring that parents financially support their 
children, and although providing counsel to indigent parents increases the fiscal 
and administrative burdens of the state, the interest of the government is not 
somehow undercut by providing counsel to parents who have no fiscal ability to 
comply with the conditions to purge a previous contempt order. 
{¶ 53} Based on the foregoing, the failure of the juvenile court to 
determine whether Liming qualified as indigent marks the absence of a critical 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
22 
safeguard.  Assuming Liming qualified as indigent, which the court so determined 
when it appointed him appellate counsel within only weeks of having denied him 
appointed counsel at the purge hearing, balancing the three competing factors set 
forth in Mathews compels me to conclude that he was denied procedural due 
process.  Thus, the procedure in this case did not meet the strict mandates of due 
process. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 54} Ability to pay is the essence of an action for contempt for failure to 
pay.  A contempt action includes hearings to determine contempt as well as the 
purge of that contempt.  The right of a parent facing incarceration due to 
noncompliance with the purge conditions of a contempt order is not dependent on 
the nature of a specific hearing or whether the action is civil or criminal.  Rather, 
the right of an indigent parent to counsel emanates from the possibility of 
incarceration for failure to comply with an order to pay when the alleged indigent 
contemnor has no ability to pay.  Although Turner does not require the 
appointment of counsel in all such instances, assuming that Liming qualified as 
indigent at the purge hearing, balancing the three competing factors in Mathews 
favors the appointment of counsel, and the failure of the court to make an express 
finding as to his ability to pay, and to appoint counsel upon a finding of 
indigency, violated his right to procedural due process. 
{¶ 55} For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the Fourth 
District Court of Appeals and remand the matter to the juvenile court for 
determination as to whether Liming qualified as indigent and for the appointment 
of counsel upon a finding of indigency. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and E. Kelly Mihocik, Assistant 
Public Defender, for appellant. 
January Term, 2012 
23 
 
Keith M. Wiens, for appellee. 
______________________