Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 14

10 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

Opinion of the Court 

involving  incarceration,  not  that  a  right  to  counsel  exists
in all such cases (a position that would have been difficult 
to reconcile with Gagnon). 

B 

family  receives  welfare  support 

Civil  contempt  proceedings  in  child  support  cases  con- 
stitute  one  part  of  a  highly  complex  system  designed  to
assure  a  noncustodial  parent’s  regular  payment  of  funds 
typically  necessary  for  the  support  of  his  children.  Often 
from  a  state-
the 
administered  federal  program,  and  the  State  then  seeks
reimbursement  from  the  noncustodial  parent.  See  42 
U. S. C.  §§608(a)(3)  (2006  ed.,  Supp.  III),  656(a)(1)  (2006 
ed.);  S. C.  Code  Ann.  §§43–5–65(a)(1),  (2)  (2010  Cum.
Supp.).  Other  times  the  custodial  parent  (often  the
mother,  but  sometimes  the  father,  a  grandparent,  or  an-
other  person  with  custody)  does  not  receive  government
benefits  and  is  entitled  to  receive  the  support  payments 
herself. 

The  Federal  Government  has  created  an  elaborate 
procedural  mechanism  designed  to  help  both  the  govern-
ment  and  custodial  parents  to  secure  the  payments  to
which  they  are  entitled.    See  generally  Blessing  v.  Free-
stone, 520 U. S. 329, 333 (1997) (describing the “interlock-
ing  set  of  cooperative  federal-state  welfare  programs”  as 
they relate to child support enforcement); 45 CFR pt. 303
(2010) (prescribing standards for state child support agen-
cies).  These  systems  often  rely  upon  wage  withholding, 
expedited  procedures  for  modifying  and  enforcing  child 
support  orders,  and  automated  data  processing. 
42 
U. S. C. §§666(a), (b), 654(24).  But sometimes States will 
use  contempt  orders  to  ensure  that  the  custodial  parent
receives  support  payments  or  the  government  receives
reimbursement.  Although  some  experts  have  criticized 
this  last-mentioned  procedure,  and  the  Federal  Govern-
ment  believes  that  “the  routine  use  of  contempt  for  non-