Pasqua v. Council
"Pasqua v. Council, 892 A.2d 663" (N.J. 2006) was a landmark family court decision decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 2006. The court ruled that indigent parents facing the serious threat of incarceration for nonpayment of child support were entitled to legal counsel. In 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Turner v. Rogers, which held that the US Constitution does not always mandate the appointment of counsel under these circumstances. This ruling does not negatively impact the Pasqua decision. Facts. David Perry Davis, Princeton, argued the cause for appellants. Patrick  DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel). Melville D. Miller, Jr., President, argued the cause for amicus curiae Legal Services of New Jersey. David B. Rubin, Metuchen, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association. Justice ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. The right to counsel is among our most precious of constitutional rights because it is the necessary means of securing other fundamental rights. It has long been recognized that the right to a fair trial  would be an empty promise without the right to counsel. In this appeal, we must determine whether indigent parents charged with violating child support orders and subject to coercive incarceration at ability-to-pay hearings have a right to appointed counsel. We now hold that our Federal and State Constitutions guarantee that right. Background. Since the passage of the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100–485, 102 Stat. 2343), the NJ family court system routinely used incarceration without due process as an enforcement tool on parents who failed to pay support. In 2005, Plaintiffs Anne Pasqua, Ray Tolbert, and  Michael Anthony are parents who were arrested for not complying with their court-ordered child support obligations. Following their arrests, plaintiff Pasqua was brought before defendant Superior Court Judge F. Lee Forrester, and plaintiffs Tolbert and Anthony were brought before defendant Superior Court Judge Gerald J. Council. Those judges conducted enforcement hearings pursuant to Rule 1:10-3 to determine plaintiffs' ability to pay their support obligations. The essential purpose of those proceedings was to determine whether plaintiffs were in willful disobedience of previously entered court orders. At the hearings, plaintiffs were not represented by counsel. They also were not advised  of a right to counsel and, if indigent, of a right to appointed counsel. Both Judge Forrester and Judge Council set an amount of support arrears to be paid by plaintiffs as a condition of their release. In June 2000, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and naming as defendants: In their complaint, plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to appointed counsel to indigent parents facing the loss of their  liberty at child support enforcement proceedings. Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin defendants from using incarceration as a means of coercing compliance with support orders until indigent parents are provided appointed counsel. Plaintiffs asserted that injunctive relief is required because they still are indigent, cannot pay their support obligations, and face the potential loss of their freedom at future enforcement hearings without the assistance of counsel. All three plaintiffs alleged that they were incarcerated in violation of their right to counsel due to policies and procedures promulgated by the Chief Justice and the Administrative Director of the Courts. In addition  to the foregoing relief, plaintiffs also requested class certification for those similarly situated parents facing coercive incarceration at child support enforcement hearings. The federal district court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that federal courts ordinarily should abstain from intervening in pending state cases, as explained in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that to grant "relief here would address issues that plaintiffs can raise in their own cases currently pending in the New Jersey courts."Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412, 421 (3d Cir.2003). In February  2003, plaintiffs filed the same complaint in the Superior Court, Law Division, along with an order to show cause seeking preliminary restraints. Judge Feinberg declined plaintiffs' request for emergent relief, but set the matter down for oral argument. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Because there was no apparent dispute over the factual allegations in the complaint, after hearing oral argument, Judge Feinberg directly addressed the legal issue raised. In doing so, she denied plaintiffs' application for class certification. Supreme Court decision. The New Jersey Supreme Court issued its ruling on March 8, 2006 it was as  follows: