Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

Cite as:  564 U. S. ____ (2011) 

13 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

carceration  is  a  policy  judgment  for  state  and  federal
lawmakers,  as  is  the  entire  question  of  government  in-
volvement in the area of child support.  See Elrod & Dale, 
Paradigm Shifts and Pendulum Swings in Child Custody,
42  Fam.  L. Q.  381,  382  (2008)  (observing  the  “federaliza-
tion  of  many  areas  of  family  law”  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted)).  This and other repercussions of the shift
away from the nuclear family are ultimately the business 
of the policymaking branches.  See, e.g., D. Popenoe, Fam-
ily in Decline in America, reprinted in War Over the Fam-
ily  3,  4  (2005)  (discussing  “four  major  social  trends”  that
emerged  in  the  1960’s  “to  signal  a  widespread  ‘flight’ ” 
from  the  “nuclear  family”);  Krause,  Child  Support  Reas-
sessed,  24  Fam.  L. Q.  1,  16  (1990)  (“Easy-come,  easy-go
marriage and casual cohabitation and procreation are on a
collision  course  with  the  economic  and  social  needs  of 
children”); M. Boumil & J. Friedman, Deadbeat Dads 23–
24 (1996) (“Many [children of deadbeat dads] are born out 
of  wedlock  . . . .    Others  have  lost  a  parent  to  divorce  at
such a young age that they have little conscious memory of 
it”). 

* 

* 

* 

I  would  affirm  the  judgment  of  the  South  Carolina 
Supreme  Court  because  the  Due  Process  Clause  does  not 
provide  a  right  to  appointed  counsel  in  civil  contempt
hearings  that  may  lead  to  incarceration.  As  that  is  the 
only issue properly before the Court, I respectfully dissent.