Opinion ID: 2365068
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Delaware's Case-by-Case Approach

Text: This Court first addressed whether the federal due process standards of Lassiter required the appointment of counsel for an indigent parent in termination of parental rights proceedings in In re Carolyn S.S. [42] This Court recognized, as was pointed out in Lassiter, that a majority of the states require the appointment of counsel in termination proceedings by statute and that [s]ince we find Delaware among the minority of the states which have not progressed in this developing area of the law, we take the occasion to call the situation to the attention of the General Assembly. [43] Nevertheless, Delaware is still only one of five states that continue to decide whether to appoint counsel for indigent parents in a termination proceeding by applying the Eldridge factors on a case-by-case basis. [44] At the present time, the Family Court routinely appoints counsel to represent parents who appear, request legal representation and demonstrate indigency in a termination proceeding. The Office of the Child Advocate argues that as a result of the dynamic changes in this area of the law since Lassiter, this Court should overrule In re Carolyn S.S. and hold that the Delaware Constitution mandates the appointment of counsel for all indigent parents in termination proceedings. That issue is not squarely before us in this case. We will decide that issue when it is presented in a future case if, following a timely request for legal representation, the Family Court ever declines to appoint counsel for an indigent parent in a termination proceeding.