Opinion ID: 2275396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Termination Representation Rights

Text: In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to weigh the Eldridge factors where the appellant claimed due process required the appointment of counsel for an indigent person in a termination of parental rights proceeding. [18] In Lassiter, that Court concluded there was a presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if the loser, he may be deprived of his personal liberty. [19] In Lassiter, after considering the sum total of all three Eldridge factors against the presumption that there is no right to counsel except in cases involving a potential loss of liberty, the United States Supreme Court concluded the United States Constitution does not require the appointment of counsel in every termination of parental rights proceeding. Instead, it held that the decision to appoint counsel would be left for trial judges to determine, on a case-by-case basis. [20] In Lassiter, although the United States Supreme Court left the decision whether to appoint counsel for indigent parents to individual trial judges, it noted that even two decades ago, courts generally ruled that counsel must be appointed for indigent parents in termination proceedings. [21] At the present time, forty-five states require the appointment of counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings. [22] Delaware remains one of the few states to continue to use the case-by-case approach. [23] In Carolyn S.S., this Court adopted the Lassiter presumption in construing the Delaware Constitution instead of holding that there was a fixed rule of entitlement to counsel for indigent parents in all termination proceedings. [24] Accordingly, when an indigent litigant is not confronted with a deprivation of personal liberty, the due process right to the appointment of counsel guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Delaware Constitution is decided on a case-by-case basis, i.e., justice administered according to the right of the cause. [25] In making that determination, the Delaware Constitution and the United States Constitution require courts to look at the same three elements that are now known as the Eldridge factors: the private interests at stake, the government's interest, and the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions. [26] Today, Delaware judges routinely appoint counsel to represent indigent parents in termination of parental rights proceedings.