About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


14 Touro L. Rev. 247 (1997-1998)
The Right to Appointed Counsel in Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings: The States' Response to Lassiter

handle is hein.journals/touro14 and id is 263 raw text is: THE RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL IN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS: THE STATES' RESPONSE TO LASSITER Rosalie R. Young' In 1981, the United States Supreme Court held in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services2 that there was no constitutional right to counsel for indigent parents facing involuntary termination of parental rights.3 The Lassiter Court mandated a case by case evaluation of the need for counsel based upon the balancing test described in Mathews v. Eldridge4 which requires a consideration of the private interests, the interests of the state, and the risk of an erroneous deprivation.5 Observers worried that ' B.A. (Pennsylvania State University); M.S.S.W. (Columbia University School of Social Work); M.A., Ph.D. (Syracuse University). The author is an assistant professor in the Public Justice Department of the State University of New York at Oswego, whose research focuses on the civil legal needs of the poor and near poor. She is grateful to the staff at the library of the Syracuse University College of Law for their assistance with this research. 2 452 U.S. 18 (1981). 3 Id. at 33. 4 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). The Supreme Court held that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to termination of disability benefits because administrative procedures fully complied with due process. Id. at 349. 5 Id. at 335. See also M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 117 S. Ct. 555, 561, 570 (1996). In December 1996, the Supreme Court held that denying a parent the transcript necessary to appeal the termination of her parental rights because of her inability to pay the record preparation fees would be a denial of rights granted in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 561-70. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg recognized that the importance of parental rights required deference and protection, while citing, without question, the Lassiter Court's holding that when parental rights are threatened a case-by-case evaluation of the need for 247