Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

778.  And  in  determining  whether  the  Clause  requires  a
right  to  counsel  here,  we  must  take  account  of  opposing
interests,  as  well  as  consider  the  probable  value  of  “addi-
tional  or  substitute  procedural  safeguards.”    Mathews, 
supra, at 335. 

Doing  so,  we  find  three  related  considerations  that, 
when  taken  together,  argue  strongly  against  the  Due 
Process  Clause  requiring  the  State  to  provide  indigents 
with counsel in every proceeding of the kind before us. 

First, 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.  But when the right procedures are 
in  place,  indigence  can  be  a  question  that  in  many—but
not  all—cases  is  sufficiently  straightforward  to  warrant
determination prior to providing a defendant with counsel,
even  in  a  criminal  case.    Federal  law,  for  example,  re-
quires  a  criminal  defendant  to  provide  information  show-
ing  that  he  is  indigent,  and  therefore  entitled  to  state-
funded counsel, before he can receive that assistance.  See 
18 U. S. C. §3006A(b). 

Second,  sometimes,  as  here,  the  person  opposing  the
defendant  at  the  hearing  is  not  the  government  repre-
sented by counsel but the custodial parent unrepresented
by  counsel.  See  Dept.  of  Health  and  Human  Services,
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Understanding Child
Support Debt: A Guide to Exploring Child Support Debt in
Your  State  5,  6  (2004)  (51%  of  nationwide  arrears,  and 
58%  in  South  Carolina,  are  not  owed  to  the  government).
The  custodial  parent,  perhaps  a  woman  with  custody  of
one or more children, may be relatively poor, unemployed,
and  unable  to  afford  counsel.  Yet  she  may  have  encour-
aged the court to enforce its order through contempt.  Cf. 
Tr.  Contempt  Proceedings  (Sept.  14,  2005),  App.  44a–45a
(Rogers  asks  court,  in  light  of  pattern  of  nonpayment,  to 
confine  Turner).  She  may  be  able  to  provide  the  court