10. We know what it’s like to go through custody battles, and we don’t want to seal our kids to that fate by marrying the wrong person.
Turner argues that indigent defendants facing incarceration through civil contempt hearings should have the right to appointed counsel under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Turner claims that the Court’s Sixth Amendment cases involving the right to counsel focus on the defendant’s need for the guidance that counsel provides, and the seriousness of the stakes involved. Turner asserts that in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), the Court determined that a juvenile is entitled to the right to counsel in civil juvenile delinquency hearings, which may result in institutionalization. The Court reasoned the juvenile had a right to counsel because the hearings could result in incarceration comparable to felony prosecution, and because the juvenile requires counsel to navigate the law and present an adequate defense. Similarly, Turner asserts that the Court determined in Vitek v. Jones that a prisoner has a right to counsel in civil commitment proceedings, because commitment results in a substantial restriction of liberty, and the defendant would likely require counsel to adequately exercise and protect his rights. Turner argues that these cases establish the proposition that a defendant in a civil proceeding facing incarceration has the right to counsel.
Rogers claims that Turner’s proposition is incorrect, because the Due Process clause does not create a presumptive right to counsel in civil cases where the defendant may be incarcerated. Rogers explains that the Court in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), held that minors do not have the right to counsel when facing commitment to a mental hospital. The Court found a “presumption that there is no right to appointed counsel in the absence of at least a potential deprivation of physical liberty.” Rogers asserts that Lassiter does not create a presumption of a right of counsel; potential incarceration is not in itself sufficient to create an exception to the general rule that there is no right to counsel in civil cases.
Rogers argues that due process does not require counsel for a defendant in a child-support civil-contempt hearing. In order to provide a complete defense, the defendant need only show that he cannot pay by bringing in tax forms, or employment or doctors’ letters. Rogers claims that defendants do not need counsel because there are relaxed procedural and evidentiary rules, no juries, and technical issues involving the statute of limitations or res judicata rarely arise. Rogers declares that if the defendant in a child support proceeding did have a right to counsel then the proceedings would become unbalanced; the child-support-seeking plaintiff would not have a corresponding right to counsel and likely could not afford to hire a private attorney.
The United States agrees with Rogers that Due Process does not require appointed counsel for defendants in child support civil contempt hearings where the defendant could be imprisoned. Nevertheless, the United States argues for reversal because the judge in this case did not provide the defendant with a way to prove that he could not pay the support, thereby violating due process. Inability to pay is a complete defense to a civil contempt charge for non-payment of child support. The United States contends that due process may be satisfied if the family court implements procedures, such as requiring financial forms, affidavits, or preliminary assessments of the defendant’s ability to pay.
‘‘(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(1) STRATEGIC PLANNING.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall begin to provide technical assistance to States and local governments requesting support to develop and implement the strategic plan required under subsection (a)(6). The Attorney General may enter into agreements with 1 or more non-governmental organizations to provide technical assistance and training under this paragraph. ‘‘(2) PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall begin to provide technical assistance to States and local governments, including any agent thereof with responsibility for administration of justice, requesting support to meet the obligations established by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall include— ‘‘(A) public dissemination of practices, structures, or models for the administration of justice consistent with the requirements of the Sixth Amendment; and ‘‘(B) assistance with adopting and implementing a system for the administration of justice consistent with the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. ‘‘(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For each of fiscal years 2017 through 2021, of the amounts appropriated to carry out this subpart, not less than $5,000,000 and not more than $10,000,000 shall be used to carry out this subsection.’’. (c) APPLICABILITY.—The requirement to submit a strategic plan under section 501(a)(6) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added by subsection (b), shall apply to any application submitted under such section 501 for a grant for any fiscal year beginning after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
This past week I have been struggling about blogging my life. One of my kids says she hates reading about her family here… I know it hurts her and I know she probablly feels compelled to read anyway.
I feel I must continue blogging here because I run across so many people on a daily basis facing choices I once made; facing outcomes that might hurt all the people they love, and I think my experiences might help them avoid mistakes that can’t be undone mistakes known by experts in PAS & High Conflict Divorces (HCD) shown, known and proven to cause serious, sometimes PERMANENT, psychological trauma to kids and parents in high conflict divorce cases (HCD}.
If you’ve been reading here before then you know that I feel that sometimes a parent isn’t alienating the child/ren on purpose; sometimes they are just so full of pain over the break-up they can’t bring themselves to be respectful… Talking about the other parent in a positive light is actually impossible when one is hurting so badly… and alienation can occur subconsciously. However, once a parent understands that their behavior, comments, and preventing contact so that normal healthy parent/child relationships can continue to exist, is harming not just their ex, but also damaging the children, well then we move to a different level. We may be leaving kids in the care of a cruel and possibly dangerous person… One who doesn’t care about the child’s self esteem, or who places their own feelings above those others. This is the person who should face sanctions, possibly criminal charges for child abuse. That is EXACTLY what this behavior is; Child Abuse.
Signs of parental alienation include:
- Bad-mouthing the other parent to the children
- Limiting contact
- Erasing the parent from the children’s lives
- Forcing the children to reject the other parent
- Forcing the children to choose sides
- Creating the impression the other parent is dangerous (yes I just said the alternator is the dangerous one…)
- Belittling comments to the other parent in front of the children
- Calling the children to testify against the other parent
- Convincing the children the other parent is creating financial hardship on the family
- Spreading rumors and lies to community members which make it difficult, if not impossible, for the other parent to remain within the family’s previous shared community.
- Making criminal allegations to law enforcement causing legal issues and sometimes incarceration when there is no validity to the charges; or the charges emanate from legal activity prior to divorce or separation.
My son believes that I stole from his father, he says he was shown proof. I have asked to see this proof to no avail. I’m left to believe either it doesn’t exist, or may be easily refuted once I can see what was shown to him. Proving a negative is almost impossible. However making sense of documents, providing legitimate reasons specific papers exist, is quite simple. Showing a kid some stock trades or line item purchases without giving background, or dates, (perhaps a married couple decision to make a purchase, now being twisted into a theft by the outsider) whatever the case may be, if their was a CRIME COMMITTED then the District Attorney would file charges, a criminal trial would ensue, and the truth would come out because unlike family court, criminal court has due process and burdens of proof to satisfy. How is a child supposed to have the critical thinking skills required to question legitimacy of these types of accusations? S/he can’t s/he just believes it or not.
MY HIGHEST CRIME:
ONE DAY while I was still married I did something out of anger that I knew was wrong. I charged 100 pizzas to his card and had them delivered to his former workplace with a nice greeting. $500. is no felony. People enjoyed it and I felt a little less angry that day.
Yup I did that.
One article advises not to give details of the marriage breakdown, that this is alienating behavior.
After more than 13 years of having my reputation tarnished while everyone thinks he walks on water I say to Hades with that! I am telling my side. I am not letting my kids think I walked out on him or them, I didn't!
I can see not telling a 6 year old, but my kids are 17, 19, 24 and 26 this year. I am sharing my story for many reasons, and one is so that my adult children can learn things to avoid and things to pay attention to in their future relationships. After all, it has been his role modeling that they have observed, and I believe that his way is not the way to treat your spouse