Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
452 U.S. 18 (1981)
Facts: In 1975, after a hearing in the District Court of Durham County, N.C., Ms. Abby Lassiter was found to have not properly cared for her child William and he was remanded into the custody of the Durham County Department of Social Services. One year later Ms. Lassister was convicted of attempted murder and was incarcerated for a 25 to 40 year term of imprisonment. In 1978 the Department of Social Services petitioned the court for termination of parental rights, citing that Ms. Lassiter has not had any meaningful contact with William since 1975. Ms. Lassiter’s Mother hired counsel concerning her murder conviction. Ms. Lassiter received notification of the hearing to terminate parental rights but told no one including her counsel. The district court determined that Ms. Lassiter had ample notification and time to obtain counsel.
Procedure: The District Courts ruling was appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 1981.
Issue: The question was whether Ms. Lassiter as an indigent, and under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, was required to have counsel appointed and present at the hearing to terminate her parental rights in connection with her son William Lassiter?
Pre-Existing Rules: The process clause of the 14th Amendment does require the appointment of counsel under circumstances where the absolute liberty and freedom could be curtailed as a result of the proceedings Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1965)
Holding: No. The court found that there is an “invasion of the protected area of individual privacy†but does not rise to the standard of invasion needed to “compel the court to hold that appointment for counsel for indigent parents is constitutionally mandated†Circuit Courts ruling affirmed.
Reasoning: The court believed that Ms. Lassiter was afforded proper due process especially considering that the outcome of the hearing would not result in any potential jail time, was not criminal, did not result in the potential curtailing of freedom or absolute liberty. The court used the Eldridge factors when evaluating what due process requires: “1. The private interests at stake, 2. The government’s interest and 3. The risk of the procedure used leading to an erroneous decisionâ€
Evaluation: Ms. Lassiter was given ample notification and decided not to respond to the notification in writing that would have enabled her access to counsel. She was serving prison sentence of 25 to 40 years for attempted murder essentially making any substantive parenting impossible. If the hearing had been as serious to have potentially affected her personal freedom and absolute liberty, then she should have had counsel present.
452 U.S. 18 (1981)
Facts: In 1975, after a hearing in the District Court of Durham County, N.C., Ms. Abby Lassiter was found to have not properly cared for her child William and he was remanded into the custody of the Durham County Department of Social Services. One year later Ms. Lassister was convicted of attempted murder and was incarcerated for a 25 to 40 year term of imprisonment. In 1978 the Department of Social Services petitioned the court for termination of parental rights, citing that Ms. Lassiter has not had any meaningful contact with William since 1975. Ms. Lassiter’s Mother hired counsel concerning her murder conviction. Ms. Lassiter received notification of the hearing to terminate parental rights but told no one including her counsel. The district court determined that Ms. Lassiter had ample notification and time to obtain counsel.
Procedure: The District Courts ruling was appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 1981.
Issue: The question was whether Ms. Lassiter as an indigent, and under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, was required to have counsel appointed and present at the hearing to terminate her parental rights in connection with her son William Lassiter?
Pre-Existing Rules: The process clause of the 14th Amendment does require the appointment of counsel under circumstances where the absolute liberty and freedom could be curtailed as a result of the proceedings Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1965)
Holding: No. The court found that there is an “invasion of the protected area of individual privacy†but does not rise to the standard of invasion needed to “compel the court to hold that appointment for counsel for indigent parents is constitutionally mandated†Circuit Courts ruling affirmed.
Reasoning: The court believed that Ms. Lassiter was afforded proper due process especially considering that the outcome of the hearing would not result in any potential jail time, was not criminal, did not result in the potential curtailing of freedom or absolute liberty. The court used the Eldridge factors when evaluating what due process requires: “1. The private interests at stake, 2. The government’s interest and 3. The risk of the procedure used leading to an erroneous decisionâ€
Evaluation: Ms. Lassiter was given ample notification and decided not to respond to the notification in writing that would have enabled her access to counsel. She was serving prison sentence of 25 to 40 years for attempted murder essentially making any substantive parenting impossible. If the hearing had been as serious to have potentially affected her personal freedom and absolute liberty, then she should have had counsel present.