Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

Syllabus 

about  his  financial  status;  and  (4)  an  express  finding  by  the  court 
that the defendant has the ability to pay.

This  decision  does  not  address  civil  contempt  proceedings  where 
the  underlying  support  payment  is  owed  to  the  State,  e.g.,  for  reim-
bursement of welfare funds paid to the custodial parent, or the ques-
tion what due process requires in an unusually complex case where a 
defendant  “can  fairly  be  represented  only  by  a  trained  advocate,” 
Gagnon, supra, at 788.  Pp. 10–16. 

3. Under  the  circumstances,  Turner’s  incarceration  violated  due 
process  because  he  received  neither  counsel  nor  the  benefit  of  alter-
native  procedures  like  those  the  Court  describes.  He  did  not  have 
clear notice that his ability to pay would constitute the critical ques-
tion  in  his  civil  contempt  proceeding.    No  one  provided  him  with  a 
form  (or  the  equivalent)  designed  to  elicit  information  about  his  fi-
nancial  circumstances.    And  the  trial  court  did  not  find  that  he  was 
able  to  pay  his  arrearage,  but  nonetheless  found  him  in  civil  con-
tempt and ordered him incarcerated.  P. 16. 

387 S. C. 142, 691 S. E. 2d 470, vacated and remanded. 

BREYER,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  KENNEDY, 
GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a dis-
senting  opinion,  in  which  SCALIA,  J.,  joined,  and  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and ALITO, JJ., joined as to Parts I–B and II.