Document: 452 U.S. 18 101 S.Ct. 2153 68 L.Ed.2d 640 Abby Gail LASSITER, Petitioner,v.DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. No. 79-6423. Argued Feb. 23, 1981. Decided June 1, Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, See 453 927, 102 889. Syllabus In 1975, a North Carolina state court adjudicated petitioner's infant son to be neglected child and transferred him the custody of respondent Durham County Department Social Services. A year later, petitioner was convicted second-degree murder, she began sentence 25 40 years imprisonment. 1978, petitioned terminate parental rights. Petitioner brought from prison hearing on petition, court, after determining, sua sponte, that had been given ample opportunity obtain counsel her failure do so without just cause, did not postpone proceedings. aver indigent, appoint for her. At hearing, cross-examined social worker respondent, both mother testified under court's questioning. The thereafter terminated status, finding contacted about since December "wilfully failed maintain concern or responsibility welfare minor." Court Appeals rejected sole contention appeal because Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment required State provide Supreme summarily denied discretionary review. Held : 1. Constitution does require appointment indigent parents in every status termination proceeding. decision whether due process calls is answered first instance by trial subject appellate Pp. 2158-2162. (a) With regard what "fundamental fairness" requirement means concerning right appointed counsel, there presumption an litigant has only when, if he loses, may deprived his physical liberty. other elements decision—the private interest at stake, government's interest, risk procedures used will lead erroneous decisions, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 319, 335, 96 893, 903, 47 18—must balanced against each then weighed presumption. 25-27. (b) parent's accuracy justice extremely important one (and supplemented dangers criminal liability inherent some proceedings); shares with parent correct decision, relatively weak pecuniary avoiding expense cost lengthened proceedings presence and, but all cases, possibly stronger informal procedures; complexity proceeding incapacity uncounseled could be, would always great enough make deprivation rights insupportably high. Thus if, case, interests were their strongest, State's weakest, risks error peak, Eldridge factors overcome counsel. 27-32. 2. circumstances this judge deny law when record shows, inter alia, petition contained no allegations neglect abuse upon which charges based; expert witnesses testified; case presented specially troublesome points law; have made determinative difference petitioner; expressly declined appear 1975 hearing; found effort contest cause. Pp.32-33. 43 N.C.App. 525, 259 S.E.2d 336, affirmed. Leowen Evans, Raleigh, N.C., petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Thomas Russell Odom, Bolton, respondent. Steven Mansfield Shaber, Carolina, as amicus curiae, Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 * late spring evidence Lassiter, provided William proper medical care, District County, N. C., Services, here. Ms. Lassiter charged first-degree imprisonment.1 1978 Lassiter's because, alleged, "has any contact 1975" willfully left foster care more than two consecutive showing substantial progress correcting conditions led removal child, positive response diligent efforts Services strengthen relationship follow through constructive planning future child." 2 served notice it held. Although retained connection invalidate murder conviction, never mentioned forthcoming (or, matter, person except, said, "someone" prison). behest Services' attorney, held August 31, 1978. opened, apparently judge's insistance, discussion should time find legal assistance. Since concluded seek prior [that] cause," 3 witness. She "received complaint Duke Pediatrics followed pediatric clinic problems they having difficulty locating Lassiter. . ." said May taken hospital, where doctors asked stay "because breathing difficulties [and] malnutrition [because] deal scarring indicated severe infection gone untreated." witness further that, except "prearranged" visit chance meeting street, seen come into custody, neither nor "made regarding When placed grandmother's not, grandmother me number occasions able take child" "I checked people community church who also feel additional can handle." added July '76 time." 4 After direct examination worker, said: 5 we extensive findings '75 you papers called services told them weren't coming; serious lack treatment. And, I my 16th day '75, finds grandmother, Lucille filed 8th May, alleging daughter often children, Candina, Felicia L. days providing money food while gone." 6 conducted cross-examination firmly reiterated earlier testimony. explained several times, varying degrees clarity, ask questions stage; many disallowed really questions, arguments. 7 herself testified, questioning, properly cared William. Under cross-examination, five six times her, wanted "He knows us. Children know family. They people, family us anywhere. got four children. Three girls boy little brother see him." 8 denied, questioning judge, him. 9 December, expressed welfare, plan future." Because thus minor," "in best William's parent.2 10 On appeal, argued entitled assistance therefore erred requiring decided "[w]hile action invade protected area individual privacy, invasion unreasonable compel hold constitutionally mandated." re 527, 337. application review, 299 N.C. 120, 262 6, granted certiorari consider claim Amendment, 449 819, 70, 66 21. II 11 For its consequence, "due process" been, perhaps precisely defined. "[U]nlike rules," "is technical conception fixed content unrelated time, place circumstances." Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230. Rather, phrase expresses fairness," whose meaning opaque importance lofty. Applying uncertain enterprise must discover consists particular situation considering relevant precedents assessing are stake. A. 12 pre-eminent generalization emerges Court's indigent's such recognized exist lose liberty loses litigation. Thus, overruled principle Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595, trials need demand it, man sentenced years. Gideon Wainwright, 372 83 792, 799. And Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 92 2006, 32 530, established before prison, even crime petty term brief. 13 That defendant's personal freedom, simply Sixth Amendments triggers demonstrated announcement Gault, 387 87 1428, "the requires respect determine delinquency result commitment institution juvenile's freedom curtailed," juvenile though styled "civil" "criminal." Id., 41, S.Ct., 1451 (emphasis added). Similarly, Justices reached merits Vitek Jones, 445 480, 100 1254, 63 552, prisoner being involuntarily treatment mental hospital. fifth differed declining exclude "possibility rendered competent laymen cases." 500, 1267 (separate POWELL, J.). 14 Significantly, litigant's diminishes, Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 93 1756, 36 656, gauged previously probationer probation-revocation hearing. Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 2593, 2599, 33 484, involved analogous revoke parole, "Revocation deprives individual, absolute citizen entitled, conditional dependent observance parole restrictions." Relying discussion, Scarpelli probationers have, per se, revocation hearings, instead case-by-case basis. 15 Finally, refused extend include prosecutions which, criminal, loss Scott Illinois, 440 367, 99 1158, 59 383, instance, interpreted "central premise Argersinger" "that actual imprisonment penalty different kind fines mere threat imprisonment," endorsed "eminently sound warrant[ing] adoption line defining constitutional counsel." U.S., 373, 1162. United States defendant unless afforded defense." 373-374, 16 sum, speak voice meant considered draw It measured. B 17 18, propounds three evaluated deciding requires, viz., decisions. We balance these other, set net weight scales unsuccessful, freedom. This decisions now plain beyond multiple citation desire companionship, management children" "undeniably warrants deference absent powerful countervailing protection." Stanley 405 645, 651, 1208, 1212, 31 551. Here sought infringe end it. If prevails, worked unique deprivation. Cf. Anderson, 345 528, 533, 73 840, 843, 97 1221; Armstrong Manzo, 380 545, 85 1187, 62. injustice is, commanding one.3 19 urgent accurate decision. reason, share availability If, our adversary system presupposes, results most likely obtained equal opposed interests, child's acting represented whom become unwholesomely unequal. itself acknowledges much files written answer supply lawyer represent child. Gen.Stat. § 7A-289.29 (Supp.1979). 20 however, clearly diverge insofar wishes economically possible wants avoid But legitimate, hardly significant those here, particularly light concession respondent's brief "potential costs [sic] admittedly de minimis compared actions." 21 consideration erroneously seeks assure establishing following procedures: seeking rights, county department licensed child-placing agency lived continuously preceding petition. 7A-289.24. describe facts sufficient warrant grounds exists, 7A-289.25(6), notified 30 file 7A-289.27. denies material allegation, must, noted, guardian ad litem conduct resolve issues raised answer. 7A-289.29. answer, shall issue order terminating custodial .; examine others alleged petition." 7A-289.28. Findings fact sitting jury "be based clear, cogent, convincing evidence." 7A-289.30. Any party gives within 7A-289.34.4 22 argues hearing—the child—far abstruse, technical, unfamiliar, uniquely well informed prolonged thought. contends produce difficult evidentiary law, substantive peculiar present standards complicated. fact, reports, Departments themselves sometimes hearings workers lawyers.5 23 Yet ultimate deals simple, however commonplace be. Expert psychiatric testimony, few equipped understand fewer still confute, presented. education, uncommon dealing life, are, thrust distressing disorienting situation. combine overwhelm evident courts made. See, e. g. Davis Page, 442 F.Supp. 258, 261 (SD Fla.1977); Jamison, 251 Or. 114, 117-118, 444 P.2d 15, (1968). generally ex rel. Heller Miller, 61 Ohio St.2d 399 N.E.2d (1980); Public Welfare J. K. B., 379 Mass. 393 406 (1979); Chad S., 580 983 (Okl.1978); Myricks, Wash.2d 252, 533 841 (1975); Crist Division Youth Family 128 N.J.Super. 402, 320 A.2d 203 (1974); Danforth Maine Dept. Health Welfare, 303 794 (Me.1973); Friesz, 190 Neb. 347, 208 N.W.2d (1973).6 point presently authoritative judgment us, holding C 24 dispositive question, addressed, factors, absence least potential liberty, suffice rebut conclusion status. To summarize above factors: distributed, rigid informality, flexibility economy sacrificed," 788, 1762, say adopt standard appropriate subject, course, g., Wood Georgia, 450 261, 1097, 67 220. III 26 Here, "[i]t prudent attempt formulate precise detailed guidelines determining necessary meet applicable requirements," "[t]he susceptible almost infinite variation. 790, 1764. Nevertheless, child-custody litigation rapidly consistent fairness,7 decide today 27 represents based, hence reason. either procedural substantive. While hearsay doubt admitted, incomplete defense adequately assisted rekindling son, sparks sufficiently difference. True, might done argument live mother—but quite explicitly Lassiters, elder handle another worker's investigation similar conclusion, displayed scant once removed daughter's was, controverted, counsel's guidance render fundamentally unfair.8 ignore demonstration interested attending bothered specifically view circumstances, err failing IV 28 imposes ensure judicial fair. wise public policy, higher adopted minimally tolerable Constitution. Informed proceedings, dependency well. IJA-ABA Standards Juvenile Justice, Counsel Private Parties 2.3(b) Uniform Act 26(a), 9A U.L.A. 35 National Council Crime Delinquency, Model Rules Courts, Rule 39 (1969); HEW, Children's Bureau, Legislative Guide Drafting Acts 25(b) Guides Termination Parental Rights Responsibilities Adoption Children, Pt. II, (1961); Standard (1959). Most significantly, Columbia statutorily cases. way implies increasingly urged widely enlightened wise. 29 reasons stated opinion, ordered. Chief BURGER, concurring. join add words emphasize factor believe misconceived dissenters. purpose here "punitive." Post, 48. contrary, protective interests. Given involves lengthy showed writ "candidate" dismissal improvidently granted. ante, 32-33. However, am narrow Court, leaving determined BLACKMUN, BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 34 representation initiated youngest appropriately recognizes mother's "commanding one," 27, remotely comparable significance, 27-28, 31. Nonetheless, avoids seems obvious threatened instead, revives hoc approach thoroughly discredited nearly ago 799 (1963). cannot extinguished formal benefit dissent. unfamiliar problem mandated 1595 (1942), reviewed length tradition behind historical practices area. Betts—that apply guarantee permitted flexible, determination trials—was 345, 797. reasoning effect defendants " 'not fundamental right, essential fair trial.' 340, (quoting 471), 1261. Finding founded precedents, "reason reflection recognize justice, haled too poor hire lawyer, assured 344, 796. 530 (1972), requisite incorporated Fourteenth, misdemeanor offense punishable less months.1 Outside context, relied flexible nature whenever required. purposes probation determinations, administrative including State, conclude probationers. 785-789, 1761-1763, 656 (1973). school disciplinary brief, informal, intended part educative, Goss Lopez, 419 565, 583, 95 729, 740, 42 725 (1975). recently, intrude minor facing voluntary civil parent, role decision's essentially nature. Parham J.R., 584, 604-609, 2493, 2505, (1979). 37 instances, varies relation stake governmental Where individual's diminished stature, prescribed procedure decisionmaking trappings adversarial trial-type proceeding, process. Implicit analysis contrary warranted. assumes weighty curtail fairness. 527 (1967). acknowledge allows rules address situations contexts. 38 disputed intervention between accomplished requisites Clause. Nor prescribed. own initiative sever bonds parenthood. decisionmaker force, then, mold, relate vital, comport fairness remains unrepresented As acknowledges, others, rely balancing competing succinctly described 47, (1976).2 majority, evaluate "three distinct factors" specified Eldridge: affected; employed State; support challenged procedure. children." 551 (1972). occupies culture, centrality life focus responsibility. "[F]ar precious property rights," 1221 (1953), deemed among "essential orderly pursuit happiness free men," Meyer Nebraska, 390, 399, 625, 626, 1042 (1923), priceless 'liberties derive merely shifting economic arrangements.' quoting Kovacs Cooper, 336 77, 95, 69 448, 458, 513 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Accordingly, although verbally silent specific families, choice matters long viewed worthy protection Amendment. Smith Organization Foster Families, 431 816, 845, S. Ct. 2094, 2110, 53 (1977); Moore East Cleveland, 494, 499, 1932, 1935, 52 531 (1977) (plurality opinion); Prince Massachusetts, 321 158, 166, 64 438, 442, 88 645 (1944); Pierce Society Sisters, 268 510, 534-535, 45 571, 573, 1070 (1925); 626. Within general ambit integrity, accorded high degree natural controlling details upbringing, Wisconsin Yoder, 205, 232-234, 1526, 1541-1542, (1972); retaining companionship 842-847, 2108-2111; 1212. aim influence parent-child extinguish total irrevocable.3 Unlike leaves communicate participate in, about, affecting religious, educational, emotional, development. surprising forced dissolution punitive sanction courts,4 Congress,5 commentators.6 candidly notes, "unique deprivation." 41 magnitude critical significance calculus, "by extent 'condemned suffer grievous loss.' Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 263, 90 1011, 1018, 287 (1970), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, 168, 71 624, 646, 817 (1951) Little Streater, 12, 2202, 2208-2209, 627 (1981); 481, 2600, 484 Surely losses abrogation asserts somehow "personal liberty" cases "presumption" asserted, 26-27, confinement trigger Indeed, incarceration condition behalf defendant. prospect canceled probation, consequent 1761-1763; 489, 2604. hand, new transfer hospital preclude recognition adverse changes ofconfinement stigma presumably associated labeled mentally ill. 492, 1263, 1264, 552 (1980). Members "other deprivations liberty," coupled capacity prisoner, compelled provision 496-497, 1265 (opinion WHITE, joined BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, JJ.).7 24-25, 1442. Moreover, recourse "pre-eminent generalization," misrepresents consistently emphasized attentiveness context. Once fundamental, necessity requested proceeding—both burdens created imposition.8 Compare (1976), Fuentes Shevin, 67, 1983, 556 Mitchell W. T. Grant Co., 416 600, 94 1895, (1974). 44 Rather opting insensitive onerous justify abide enduring relationships sides, appropriateness type undeniable, portion proces weighing heavily favor refined protections. second factor, namely, care. method chosen resembles respects prosecution. relies, distinctly adversarial. initiates filing district N.C.Gen.Stat. §§ 7A-289.23 7A-289.25 (Supp.1979),9 serving summons 7A-289.27(1). presides over adjudicatory follows, pursuant N.C.Rule Civ.Proc. 1A-1 general, inadmissible records authenticated. 1A-1, 43, 44, 46. 46 addition, accusatory focus. moving longer try preserve unit, marshal array resources establish separation permanent.10 attorney. access professional empowered investigate testify parent. representative call experts relations, psychology, medicine bolster case. himself techniques methods cross-examination. respects, devised vastly differs rehabilitative educative Goss, Parham. virtually attributes befits severity decision—every attribute, alter character already adversarial, formal, quintessentially legal. It, diminish termination, inherently substantial, gross disparity power parent.11 48 enhanced judged. commonly adds dimension focusing isolated acts omissions, typically quality complicated ongoing relatives, parties. bar, accused authorizing law: 49 "That [petitioner] welfare. 50 51 [for neglect], orto (Emphasis supplied.) Petition &Par; 7, App. 3.12 posed simple easily imprecise open subjective values judge.13 prevail prepared adduce abilities fault, proof foresight deem adequate improved underlying previous neglect. succeed identify issues, develop defenses, gather supporting nonhearsay evidence, witnesses. 30, tasks "may parent." submit profound understatement. Faced adjudication, adversary—the State—that commands investigative prosecutorial resources, involve ill-defined notions fault parenting, inevitable tendency defer "expertise," plainly outstripped 'the guiding hand counsel.' 36, 1448, Powell Alabama, 45, 69, 55, 64, 77 158 (1932). lacking intimidated figures authority,14 imbalance insuperable. 54 severalfold. actually achieved improvement parenting unable fact. regards demonstrate willfulness, diligence justification. errors go unchallenged uncorrected.15 extraordinary proportions. By intimidation, inarticulateness, confusion, forever involvement offspring. 55 final considered, claimed tip scale position assert informality inject unwelcome edge. Assistant Attorney General declared moves home home. obligation restore family." Tr. Oral Arg. 40. 56 may, does, legitimate promoting emotional well-being concerned, responsible committed "protect[ing] children unnecessary severance biological parents," 7A-289.22(2), spites articulated goals needlessly separates" 653,16 1213. 57 inconvenience accompany But, fiscal here." Ante, 28. financial indeed limited one, restricted instituted State. line-drawing arise types instant takes full account permanency deprivation, prosecuting available insubstantial furnishing An yield result.17 where, absolute, punitive, slight, basis refusing 58 markedly mine; too, analyzes listed weighty, fraught error, insubstantial. Yet, rather logical abruptly pulls back announces await "will distributed," read "requir[e] proceeding." illogical, marks sharp departure applied heretofore. process, held, contexts, litigants analyzing along past hand. Instead, addressing generic context formulated rule similarly situated clear. desperate experienced recipients class distinguished benefits. 264, 1018. needs Security disability urgency, moreover, existing pretermination procedures, largely assessments, objective even-handed typical entitlement 339-345, 904-907. These translating dispensing recipient income, recipient's eligibility turned testimony exception norms. reasoned 60 "To sure, credibility veracity assessment shaped truth-finding generality rare exceptions." 907. There this. Procedural norms protect unpredictable unchecked action. Through experience varied lessons emerge reflect understanding play. Such guarantees predictability uniformity underlie society's law. endorsing, retrospective review undermines very rationale concept based.18 advanced entails administration justice. defendant, suffered disadvantage. ordinary so. pleadings transcript show blunders omissions Determining becomes imagination, investigation, research focused Even reviewing embark hard pressed discern failures challenge satisfactory defense. failures, cut essence trial, inability compensate effectively eviscerates innocence. se unaware practices, unskilled garnering facts, difficult, impossible, 476, 1263 (dissenting opinion).19 Assuming fairness, cumbersome costly. implicated adjudications, necessarily increased federal interference implication 33, belied aftermath Brady. confronted innumerable post verdict challenges trials, expended muchenergy evaluating performance judges.20 level processes prompted Frankfurter, speaking complain performing "super-legal-aid bureau." Uveges Pennsylvania, 335 437, 450, 184, 190, 127 (1948) opinion). fear transform "super court." inadequate painfully apparent Petitioner, moved remove William, received represented. point, evidently arranged reside mother, Mrs. remain time. 65 22, 1976. so, imprisoned conviction murder. 1977, visited advised planned immediately strong opposition grandmother. Hearing 15. receiving summons, copy guards took steps assist obtaining representation, id., 4; Reply Brief Opposition 4, counsel.21 scarcely appropriate, fair, knowingly intelligently waived met occasion prison. assigned yet concerned events date; record. 10-13. uncover weakness surprising, indication introduced ever conversations members community. reported caring 14-15. unavailable testify, admission hearsay. objection admission. gave cross-examine 19, declarative statements. became noticeably impatient petitioner.22 stand, siblings. questioned period, disbelief answers.23 Both unwillingness home, vehemently contradicted statement complained child.24 question so.25 closing argument, 58-60, remarks. responded: "Yes. don't think it's right." 61. understandable Judge exasperation conducting attributable large measure, entirely, attorney translated reaction emotion arrange "constructive plan" "positive response" Department's intervention. adduced adequacy Valdez, Utah 2d 63, 504 1372 (1973); Commissioner Anonymous, Conn.Supp. 100, 364 250 (1976); Diernfeld People, 137 Colo. 238, 323 628 (1958). 504, 1938 508-510, 1940-1941 "diligence" family's integrity put during surely Weaver Roanoke Human Resources, 220 Va. 921, 929, 265 692, 697 Christopher H., 577 1292, 1294 (Okla.1978); Kimberly I., 72 App.Div.2d 831, 833, 421 N.Y.S.2d 649, 651 asserted willfulness obviously attacked physically regain receive meaningful visits months Dinsmore, 720, 245 386 (1978). exemplary model same. character; heard absolutely rights.26 unpursued avenues defense, underwent incredible reach ignores herself, highly 791, 1764; 441-442, 185-186; Bute 333 640, 677, 763, 782, 986 (1948). 498, 1266 factor; record, acknowledged according persons situated. 70 ironic grants, grounds, putative father's state-paid blood grouping tests disprove paternity, 627, rejects, away stresses relies "procedural "compelling [the] determination," "not inconsiderable" "fac[ing] adversary," 13, 14, 16, 2209 2210. measure inconsistency tension me. attribute distinction draws presumed views "quasi-criminal," 10, 2207. factual today, eludes Ours, supposedly, "a maturing society," Trop Dulles, 356 86, 101, 78 590, 598, 596 (1958) opinion), notion "perhaps, frozen law." Griffin 351 20, 76 585, 591, 891 (1956) concurring judgment). Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 91 780, 113 (1971), perceive dissolve marriage parties, intimate "floodgates" suspect, fears. afford closure sad all. respectfully 74 75 woman's misconduct cause deprive incarcerate permanently associate former pure liberty; latter property, statutory inheritance destroyed. serious, two. language accompanied law.* Without stating explicitly, appears treat person's benefits mechanisms allocating finite quantity claimants, Meeting terms, BLACKMUN demonstrates agree step. entitles force kind. societal insignificant prosecutors, judges, same category value protecting priceless. Appeals, occurred altercation deceased: "Defendant's [the deceased] 'come on.' struggle deceased fell knocked floor. Defendant's beating broom. floor beaten broom, entered apartment. went kitchen butcher knife. knife stabbing prostrate. body seven stab wounds. 7614SC1054 (June 1977). affirmed attack collaterally. Among arguments ineffective "seek elicit introduce [Ms. mother,] 'And hope dies.' had, like indicted charge; motion nonsuit. Superior Division, collateral relief. File 76-CR-3102 (Mar. 1979.) father, Boykin, terminated. Boykin married contributed support, father. Some protect. Petitions uncommonly activity. Parents guide petitions create. out occur judicially abused, neglected, dependent, 7A-587. provisions enacted. "clear, convincing" standard, custody. Journal Law Problems, Colum.J.L. & Soc.Prob. 230 (1968), surveys purporting reveal reduces determinations Unfortunately, survey goes presenting statistics standing alone, unilluminating. note report New York judges preside 72.2% agreed unrepresented, (11.1% disagreed); 66.7% thought (22.2% disagreed). E. F.2d 599 (CA5 1981) (en banc); Cleaver Wilcox, 499 940 (CA9 1974) (right case); Edmiston, 941 (WD Tenn.1977). According living pre-adoptive parents." He legally adopted, otherwise finally clarified, until ends. innocent guilty. n.1, supra. 383 (1979), jurisprudence imposed. 5-6, 13-16, 2205, 2209-2210; 848-849, 262-263, 1017-1018, (1970); 1230 (1961). adjudged dispositional alternatives couched terms permanence. 7A-647, 7A-651 contrast, statute provides "completely terminates obligations" continues adopted. 7A-289.33. unusual. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 8-539 Cal.Civ.Code Ann. 232.6 (West Supp.1981); Ind.Code 31-6-5-6(a) (Supp.1980); Ky.Rev.Stat. 199.613(2) Mo.Rev.Stat. 211.482 (Supp.1980). 599, 604 Brown Guy, 476 771, 773 (Nev.1979); Lemaster Oakley, 157 W.Va. 140, 144 794, 799-800 Howard, 382 So.2d 194, 199 (La.App.1980). H.R.Rep.No. 95-1386, p. (1978) ("removal great, greater, penalty. ."). Report Indian Child Pub.L. 95-608, Stat. 3069. Congress court-appointed 102(b), 3071, U.S.C. 1911(b) (1976 ed., Supp.III). Levine, Caveat Parens: Demystification Protection System, U.Pitt.L.Rev. Note, Neglect: Parent, Colum.L.Rev. 465, 478 Representation Child-Neglect Cases: Are Neglected?, 230, (1968) (Parent Study). plurality independent inmate involuntary central one. 498-500, 1266-1267. emphasizing exclusion grants burdensome layer onto traditional three-factor test. Apart improperly conflating lines supra, 35-38, reliance "rebuttable presumption" sets dangerous precedent undermine arguably supports automatic analogy eschewed bright-line approach. consequences play truth determination. McKeiver 403 1976, 647 (1971); Winship, 358, 1068, 368 party, guardian, 7A-289.24 role, statute. 7A-289.22 abuse, neglect, keep together possible. 7A-542. parents, 7A-587, opponent. furnish stage pointing awkward situation, conflicting responsibilities 39-40. matter excuse stage, adversaries, inequality starkly evident. possibility again (1977). 606-607, 2506-2507; 266, 1019. 7A-289.32(1), 7A-289.32(3) (Supp.1977). Subdivision 7A-289.32(1) repealed 1979 N.C.Sess.Laws, ch. 669, inquiry. Should established, maintenance relationship. 7A-289.31(a) adverted "best offers encourage values. 835, n. Ct., 2105, 36; Bellotti Baird, 443 622, 655, 3035, 3054, 797 (1979) (STEVENS, Quilloin Walcott, 434 246, 255, 98 549, 554, 511 Several courts, perceiving risks, far statutes vagueness grounds. Alsager Polk Cty., 18-19 Iowa 1975), aff'd 545 1137 (CA8 1976); Smith, 266 Ark. 112, 121-123, 583 S.W.2d 37, 42-43 Schetky, Angell, Morrison, Sack, Who Fail: Study Cases Rights, J.Am.Acad. Psych. 366, 375 (citing minimal educational backgrounds). 260 Fla.1977) (uncounseled ignorant governing "was spectator [dependency] proceeding," "sat silently fearful antagonizing workers"), part, banc). Parent Study, 241 (parents appearing Kings N.Y., rate dismissed petitions, 25% 7.9%, lower 62.5% 79.5%, counsel); Respondent 38-39, 25a-31a (study state-initiated actions counties; prevailed 5.5% 0.15% unrepresented). dispositive, view, 29-30, 5, "unilluminating." study indicates retain offered culpable reasonable infer sizable solely view. 27-28. example, adjudicating claims divorce obligate parents. (1973), contrary. individualized requests revocation. system, already-convicted probationer. 1761-1763. None Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 569-570, 2963, 2981, 935 Of announced places heavier burden advance make. obligated documentary testimonial allow preparation Quicksall Michigan, 339 660, 910, 1188 (1950); (1948); Marino Ragen, 332 561, 240, 170 (1947); Hawk Olson, 326 271, 116, (1945); Tomkins Missouri, 485, 370, 89 (1945). Beaney, Right American Courts 160-198 (1955). During imprisonment, spoken conviction. discuss oath indigency representing 10-11, 16. 19-20: "THE COURT: All right. Do want questions? "[PETITIONER]: About what? she— Oh, yes. Go ahead. thing say— testify. Okay. questions. Yes, to. Well, know, know— talking know. not. that? Yes. proceeding? adoption, necessary. to? why going turn home? he? My "[SOCIAL WORKER]: your time— Yeah, yeah didn't anything either." 30: "[THE COURT]: Did 1975. .? "A: No, 'cause complaint. ghost came up suppose." saying Attorney: "All Mr. do." 36. denial produced 55: "Q [from respondent]: tell Mangum cold house heat? sir, no, unh unh, sir. That's lie. God knows, I'll raise die that. Somebody else wish wouldn't talk scares room you." Lassiter; subsequently rambling answers, 52: what, let's stop You please. Just We'll rate. mean, wasting we're skipping another— "CROSS EXAMINATION BY [RESPONDENT]: confine outside official 20-21, unearth recite forth unpublished 405, 235 289 30(e)(3), Appellate Procedure, (Supp.1979 Vol. 4A), believes fitness permitting them. 7A-289.32 Prisoners Parenting: Preserving Tie Binds, Yale L.J. 1408, 1409-1410 Reliance judgments avoid. part: "No

Category: 0