Wednesday, March 31, 2010
SC SUPREME COURT RULES: NO SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR INDIGENTS IN NONSUPPORT CIVIL CONTEMPT CASES
Frankly, we are surprised with the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in the Case of Price v. Turner. We think that the argument advanced by the A. C. L. U. in its Amici Curiae Brief is more legally and logically sound than the Court's reasoning in Price. We also think that it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that (a). these cattle call Rule Hearings involve any semblance of Due Process; (b.) only willful contemnors are ever incarcerated;* and, (c.) any objective observer would conclude that even the majority of these "Deadbeats" possess "the keys to their own jail cells."
Unfortunately, we suspect that the South Carolina Supreme Court had no other choice than to rule in this manner given. As noted in "South Carolina Statehouse Report," South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal is essentially having to beg the General Assembly for funding; moreover she has indicated that she wants all the fines and fees generated through the Courts to be used to fund the operation of the Courts.
Frankly, we are surprised with the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in the Case of Price v. Turner. We think that the argument advanced by the A. C. L. U. in its Amici Curiae Brief is more legally and logically sound than the Court's reasoning in Price. We also think that it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that (a). these cattle call Rule Hearings involve any semblance of Due Process; (b.) only willful contemnors are ever incarcerated;* and, (c.) any objective observer would conclude that even the majority of these "Deadbeats" possess "the keys to their own jail cells."
Unfortunately, we suspect that the South Carolina Supreme Court had no other choice than to rule in this manner given. As noted in "South Carolina Statehouse Report," South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal is essentially having to beg the General Assembly for funding; moreover she has indicated that she wants all the fines and fees generated through the Courts to be used to fund the operation of the Courts.
It goes without saying that if more "Deadbeats" were represented by counsel, fewer would go to jail for contempt and the Courts would receive fewer fines and fees. So there may be an inherent conflict of interest in the South Carolina Supreme Court deciding whether indigents are entitled to a level playing field in their endeavors to avoid paying fees and fines to the Court. Still, the bigger question remains whether incarcerating (warehousing) indigents for non-support is going to "solve for pattern." By definition, indigents do not have money, income, and assets to meet their financial obligations. Therefore, incarcerating them for a year does not create wealth, but only transfers the burden of providing food, clothing, shelter--and sometimes very expensive medical care--from the backs of the indigent "Deadbeats" to the backs of the taxpayers.
While it may be viscerally satisfying and psychologically uplifting to some folks to see the county jails filled to the brim with indigent "Deadbeats," creating Debtor's Prisons, regardless of what you call them, is still--in our view--bad public policy. But good policy or no, given the state of the economy and South Carolina's recent commitment to track down and crack down on "Deadbeats," we anticipate that the county jails will soon be bursting at the seams with indigent contemnors to a point that there will be no space left for either misdemeanor and work release convicts or for the really bad criminals awaiting bond hearings or trials. Where to place those categories of folks will present a greater and greater challenge for the Circuit Court Judges and County Magistrates.
*According to Is the Application of civil contempt in South Carolina’s “daddy round-ups” improper? by Charleston County attorney Gregory S. Forman, Esquire:
Almost every state in the Southeast had determined that it is improper to hold a delinquent parent in jail if he or she lacks the capacity to pay the full amount owed. Ex parte Rojo, 925 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. 1996); Ex parte Talbert, 419 So. 2d 240, 241 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982); In Re Nichols, 749 So. 2d 68 (Miss. 1999); McMiller v. McMiller, 77 N.C.App. 436, 335 S.E.2d 187 (1985); Lee v. Lee, 78 N.C. App. 632, 337 S.E.2d 690 (1985); Lynch v. Lynch, 342 Md. 509, 677 A.2d 584 (1996).
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", Civil Contempt, Sixth Amendment
