Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

Opinion of the Court 

Given  the  importance  of  the  interest  at  stake,  it  is  ob-
viously  important  to  assure  accurate  decisionmaking  in
respect to the key “ability to pay” question.  Moreover, the 
fact  that  ability  to  comply  marks  a  dividing  line  between 
civil and criminal contempt, Hicks, 485 U. S., at 635, n. 7, 
reinforces the need for accuracy.  That is because an incor-
rect decision (wrongly classifying the contempt proceeding
as civil) can increase the risk of wrongful incarceration by
depriving  the  defendant  of  the  procedural  protections 
(including counsel) that the Constitution would demand in
a  criminal  proceeding.    See,  e.g.,  Dixon,  509  U. S.,  at  696 
(proof  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  protection  from  double
jeopardy);  Codispoti  v.  Pennsylvania,  418  U. S.  506,  512– 
513,  517  (1974)  (jury  trial  where  the  result  is  more  than 
six  months’  imprisonment).  And  since  70%  of  child  sup-
port  arrears  nationwide  are  owed  by  parents  with  either 
no reported income or income of $10,000 per year or less,
the  issue  of  ability  to  pay  may  arise  fairly  often.    See 
E.  Sorensen,  L.  Sousa,  &  S.  Schaner,  Assessing  Child
Support  Arrears  in  Nine  Large  States  and  the  Nation 
22  (2007)  (prepared  by  The  Urban  Institute),  online  at 
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/report.pdf (as
visited  June  16,  2011,  and  available  in  Clerk  of  Court’s 
case file); id., at 23 (“research suggests that many obligors 
who do not have reported quarterly wages have relatively
limited  resources”);  Patterson,  Civil  Contempt  and  the 
Indigent  Child  Support  Obligor:  The  Silent  Return  of 
Debtor’s  Prison,  18  Cornell  J. L.  &  Pub.  Pol’y  95,  117 
(2008).  See also, e.g., McBride v. McBride, 334 N. C. 124, 
131, n. 4, 431 S. E. 2d 14, 19, n. 4 (1993) (surveying North
Carolina  contempt  orders  and  finding  that  the  “failure  of
trial  courts  to  make  a  determination  of  a  contemnor’s 
ability to comply is not altogether infrequent”).

On  the  other  hand,  the  Due  Process  Clause  does  not 
always require the provision of counsel in civil proceedings 
where incarceration is threatened.  See Gagnon, 411 U. S.