Opinion ID: 1127387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discretion to Appoint Counsel

Text: (2) The fact that the Legislature has not required appointment of counsel for indigent respondents in termination cases does not mean that appellate courts do not have discretion to appoint counsel. As the Attorney General argues, they do have discretion. It is plain beyond the need for multiple citation that a parent's desire for and right to `the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children' is an important interest that `undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.' [Citation.].... A parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one. ( Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981) 452 U.S. 18, 27 [68 L.Ed.2d 640, 649-650, 101 S.Ct. 2153].) The reversal of a judgment refusing to terminate parental rights can potentially lead to the loss of such rights, and may itself directly cause the loss. (E.g., In re Emily L. (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 734, 744 [260 Cal. Rptr. 810] [directing the superior court to free the minor from the custody and control of the respondent parent].) We do not read section 7895 as precluding the appointment of counsel in those situations, only as not requiring it in all cases. In Jacqueline H., supra, 21 Cal.3d at page 177, footnote 6, we found that the appellate court has authority to appoint appellate counsel for a parent when parental rights are at stake. Nothing in section 7895 eliminates this authority. Indeed, constitutional considerations may mandate the appointment of counsel at least on a case-by-case basis. The court in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, supra, 452 U.S. at page 32 [68 L.Ed.2d at page 652], held that the decision whether due process calls for the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in termination proceedings [is] to be answered in the first instance by the trial court, subject, of course, to appellate review. We thus conclude that appellate courts have discretion to appoint counsel for responding parents upon request. Because of the fundamental importance to the parent and society of an accurate determination whether to terminate parental rights, counsel should be appointed whenever the appearance of counsel may reasonably affect the ultimate decision. Factors to consider are the nature of the ruling below, the complexity of the issues raised, whether the appellate court contemplates a decision adverse to the parent, and the consequences of any potential adverse ruling. Normally an appellate court should appoint counsel for the respondent whenever the issues are complex or it contemplates reversing the judgment. There may conceivably be cases where the ultimate question is left for future determination in the trial court (at which the parent could have counsel), and where the error is so clear and the law so well settled, that appellate counsel properly could be denied despite a reversal. We need not decide now, in a vacuum, whether an appellate court may ever deny counsel to a respondent parent and then reverse the judgment. But counsel should, at least, be appointed whenever the appellate court contemplates rendering a decision, like that in In re Emily L., supra, 212 Cal. App.3d 734, that itself terminates parental rights. Because of the dynamic nature of the appellate process, an initial determination that counsel is not necessary is subject to change at any time. Thus, any order denying counsel is necessarily without prejudice to reassessment during the appeal. A request for counsel should always be deemed continuing. It should not be expected, or even desired, that unrepresented respondents who have requested counsel will renew the request. If, after initially denying counsel, the court finds that counsel becomes warranted, it may, and should, make the appointment even in the absence of a renewed request. Some appellate courts might find it more efficient, on balance, to exercise their discretion by granting counsel to all responding parents in termination cases, rather than on a case-by-case basis. We do not require or prohibit either practice. That is up to the courts themselves in the management of their dockets. We merely hold that appellate courts are not required to appoint counsel for all responding parents, but may, and sometimes must, appoint counsel in specific cases. Father argues also that the state Constitution requires appointment of counsel. We need not determine the exact parameters of the constitutional right to counsel at this time, for we are confident that the appointment of counsel whenever needed under these standards is sufficient. Although the Constitution might prohibit terminating parental rights of an indigent who has requested and been denied counsel, it certainly does not require appointment of counsel in all cases. For example, a respondent who prevails on appeal despite the failure to appoint counsel can hardly have suffered a constitutional deprivation.