Opinion ID: 1795327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Payment of Attorney-Fee Claim.

Text: The district court is authorized to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent person in a multitude of proceedings, including juvenile proceedings. See Iowa Code § 815.10 (2005). An indigent person is defined under section 815.9. The costs incurred by court-appointed attorneys for indigent persons in juvenile cases are then payable by the State Public Defender from the indigent defense fund. Id. § 815.11. The State Public Defender's Office is charged with the administration of the indigent defense fund and the payment of legal fees incurred in juvenile proceedings on behalf of indigent persons. See id. § 815.10A. Under section 815.9, a person with an income at or below 125% of the poverty level is entitled to a court-appointed attorney unless the court makes a finding the person is able to pay for the cost of an attorney. Id. § 815.9( a ). A person with an income between 125% and 200% of the poverty level is not entitled to an attorney unless the court makes a written finding that not appointing counsel on the pending case would cause the person substantial hardship. Id. § 815.9( b ). To determine the poverty line, section 815.9 refers to the poverty income guidelines published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Under those guidelines, the poverty level is determined with reference to family size and gross income. The district court found Nicks was a member of a family of four and would qualify as indigent under the poverty guidelines. The State Public Defender asserts Nicks was not a member of a family of four since he was separated from his wife, and even if he was a member of a family of four, he would not suffer a substantial hardship if required to pay for an attorney. [1] Under the guidelines for a family of four, $36,000 is greater than 125% of the poverty line but less than 200% of the poverty line. A person at this level of income is only entitled to court-appointed counsel under section 815.9  i.e., is only indigent  if the person would suffer substantial hardship if counsel were not appointed. Thus, even if we assume substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Nicks was a member of a family of four, [2] substantial evidence must also exist in the record to support the district court's finding that Nicks would suffer substantial hardship if counsel was not appointed. In determining whether a person would suffer substantial hardship for purposes of section 815.9, the district court must consider the person's income, any assets subject to execution, and the seriousness of the charge or the nature of the case. Id. § 815.9. This standard reflects a pragmatic approach and requires courts to balance financial factors with the nature of the legal proceedings to determine if a substantial hardship will result if counsel is not appointed at public expense. The district court relied on Nicks' military status and his status as a member of a family of four, together with the nature of the proceedings, to find a substantial hardship would result if he was required to pay the attorney fees. While Nicks' deployment to Afghanistan creates an array of hardships and sacrifices, the income derived from military service in a combat zone is not reduced by taxation. See 26 U.S.C. § 112. Additionally, his affidavit and application reveals he incurs no expenses while in Afghanistan other than a monthly mortgage payment. There is no indication he pays any form of support to his family. Thus, military status and size of family identified by the district court as circumstances to support its decision do not demonstrate Nicks will suffer substantial hardship if required to pay for the attorney fees incurred in this case. We also observe there is no evidence that the CINA proceeding will be prolonged or complex so that the amount of legal services ultimately needed in the case will be substantial. The fee claim of $125 submitted by Bixenman reveals an adjudicative hearing has been held and a dispositional hearing has been scheduled. The dispositional hearing could conclude the legal representation, which would minimize the total legal services. We also observe that the maximum attorney fee for CINA proceedings is ordinarily set at $1100. [3] Iowa Admin. Code r. 493-12.6. On our review of the record, we find no substantial evidence to support the decision of the district court that the failure to appoint counsel for Nicks would cause him substantial hardship. Consequently, the costs incurred by his court-appointed counsel are not payable from the indigent defense fund. See generally State Pub. Defender v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Polk County, 721 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 2006) (discussing the statutory mechanism to submit a claim to be paid from the general fund).