Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

of a “right to counsel” in civil contempt proceedings enforc-
ing  child  support  orders,  we  granted  the  writ.    Compare, 
e.g., Pasqua v. Council, 186 N. J. 127, 141–146, 892 A. 2d 
663,  671–674  (2006);  Black  v.  Division  of  Child  Support 
Enforcement, 686 A. 2d 164, 167–168 (Del. 1996); Mead v. 
Batchlor, 435 Mich. 480, 488–505, 460 N. W. 2d 493, 496– 
504 (1990); Ridgway v.  Baker, 720 F. 2d 1409, 1413–1415 
(CA5  1983)  (all  finding  a  federal  constitutional  right  to
counsel  for  indigents  facing  imprisonment  in  a  child  sup-
port  civil  contempt  proceeding),  with  Rodriguez  v.  Eighth 
Judicial Dist. Ct., County of Clark, 120 Nev. 798, 808–813, 
102  P. 3d  41,  48–51  (2004)  (no  right  to  counsel  in  civil 
contempt  hearing  for  nonsupport,  except  in  “rarest  of
cases”); Andrews v. Walton, 428 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 1983) 
(“no  circumstances  in  which  a  parent  is  entitled  to  court-
appointed  counsel  in  a  civil  contempt  proceeding  for  fail-
ure to pay child support”).  Compare also In re Grand Jury 
Proceedings, 468 F. 2d 1368, 1369 (CA9 1972) (per curiam)
(general  right  to  counsel  in  civil  contempt  proceedings), 
with Duval v. Duval, 114 N. H. 422, 425–427, 322 A. 2d 1, 
3–4 (1974) (no general right, but counsel may be required 
on case-by-case basis). 

II 
Respondents  argue  that  this  case  is  moot.    See  Massa-
chusetts  v.  Mellon,  262  U. S.  447,  480  (1923)  (Article  III
judicial  power  extends  only  to  actual  “cases”  and  “contro-
versies”); Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U. S. __, __ (2009) (slip op.,
at 4) (“An actual controversy must be extant at all stages
of review” (internal quotation marks omitted)).  They point
out  that  Turner  completed  his  12-month  prison  sentence 
in 2009.  And they add that there are no “collateral conse-
quences”  of  that  particular  contempt  determination  that 
might  keep  the  dispute  alive.    Compare  Sibron  v.  New 
York, 392 U. S. 40, 55–56 (1968) (release from prison does 
not moot a criminal case because “collateral consequences”