Court Opinion

ID: 9428380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:23:35.574776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.698766
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Burger,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion and add only a few words to emphasize a factor I believe is misconceived by the dissenters. The purpose of the termination proceeding at issue here was not “punitive.” Post, at 48. On the contrary, its purpose was protective of the child’s best interests. Given the record in this ease, which involves the parental rights of a mother under lengthy sentence for murder who showed little interest in her son, the writ might well have been a “candidate” for dismissal as improvidently granted. See ante, at 32-33. However, I am content to join the narrow holding of the Court, leaving the appointment of counsel in termination *35proceedings to be determined by the state courts on a case-by-case basis.