D.N. v. K.M., 83 A.3d 825

D.N. petitioned for certification to review the Appellate Division decision in D.N. v. K.M., which held that due process does not require appointment of counsel for indigents in civil domestic-violence proceedings under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.
The Appellate Division’s ruling aligned with prevailing practice and statutory silence: the Act does not authorize appointed counsel and only one other state (New York) affirmatively provides appointed counsel for both sides in comparable statutes.
The Administrative Office of the Courts reported roughly 15,800 final restraining-order hearings in the 2012–2013 year, with the vast majority of parties unrepresented; Madden pro bono assignments were far fewer.
The Supreme Court denied certification per curiam, reasoning the case was a poor vehicle for a constitutional ruling because the petitioner did not assert indigency or request appointed counsel in the trial court record.
Justice Albin dissented, arguing the issue is squarely presented, raises questions of general public importance, and that indigent defendants face "consequences of magnitude" (loss of home, custody, firearms rights, financial penalties, registry listing) that warrant appointed counsel under New Jersey due-process jurisprudence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process requires appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in civil domestic-violence proceedings	D.N. (dissent) — indigent defendants face consequences of magnitude (loss of home, custody, firearms, finances, registry) and therefore are entitled to appointed counsel under state due-process precedents	Per curiam — the Act contains no statutory authorization; absent a constitutional ruling the court should not impose a universal appointment rule; moreover, petitioner did not establish indigency or request counsel at trial	Denied certification; Court did not decide the constitutional question because petitioner did not assert indigency or request counsel in the trial court record
Whether this case is a proper vehicle to resolve the right-to-counsel question	D.N. — Appellate Division reached and published the issue on appeal; petitioner later asserted indigency on appeal, so the issue is presented and suitable for review	Per curiam — the record lacks an assertion of indigency or a trial-court request for appointed counsel, making the issue academic and an unsuitable vehicle	Denied certification on vehicle grounds; Court treated the issue as not properly preserved for constitutional adjudication

Madden v. Delran, 126 N.J. 591 (1992) (upholding constitutionality of pro bono assignment system for indigent defendants)
Crespo v. Crespo, 201 N.J. 207 (2010) (Appellate Division previously declined to decide right-to-counsel issue where defendant had not sought appointed counsel)
Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281 (1971) (New Jersey recognized right to counsel where indigent faces a "consequence of magnitude")
Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127 (2006) (state due process may require counsel in civil proceedings with serious adverse consequences)
Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (appointment of counsel required for tier classification with significant liberty consequences)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (constitutional right to counsel in criminal prosecutions)