Opinion ID: 2334397
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview Of Flores v. Flores And AS 44.21.410(a)(4).

Text: Flores v. Flores was a divorce proceeding in which custody of the divorcing couple's child was the only contested issue. [4] Both parties were indigent, but the father obtained the representation of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC). [5] The mother asked that the Public Defender Agency be appointed to represent her in the divorce proceeding, [6] but the trial court ruled that counsel would not be appointed for the mother due to lack of agency funding. The court ordered that the case proceed with the mother unrepresented. [7] On appeal, we held that, [t]he interest at stake in this case is one of the most basic of all civil liberties, the right to direct the upbringing of one's child. [8] Given the nature of that right, we concluded that the decided and frequently decisive disadvantage to a parent not represented by counsel is constitutionally impermissible where the other parent has an attorney supplied by a public agency. [9] We emphasized that the constitutional right to counsel in custody cases was limited to cases ... where an indigent party's opponent is represented by counsel provided by a public agency.  [10] We went on to hold that, because it had been stipulated that ALSC could not represent both parties in a divorce [11] and the Public Defender Agency's responsibility did not extend to such cases, counsel should be appointed from the private bar, with compensation provided under Alaska Administrative Rule 15.1. [12] Alaska Statute 44.21.410(a)(4) was enacted in 1984 as part of the law establishing the Office of Public Advocacy. The statute provides in part: The office of public advocacy shall ... provide legal representation ... to indigent parties in cases involving child custody in which the opposing party is represented by counsel provided by a public agency. This language appears to have been drawn directly from Flores. [13] Because neither party argues that the limited legislative history of AS 44.21.410(a)(4) provides an independent basis for interpreting the statute, we base our holding entirely on Flores.