Edward Crowell v. State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court for Linn County
845 N.W.2d 676
| Iowa | 2014Background
- A privately filed termination-of-parental-rights petition under Iowa Code chapter 600A sought termination of a mother's parental rights for abandonment and nonpayment of support; the mother was indigent and requested court‑appointed counsel.
- The juvenile court declined to appoint counsel under the narrow statutory criteria of Iowa Code §600A.6A(2), finding the mother did not meet the statute’s third-factor skill/education requirement, but concluded appointment was nonetheless required by the Iowa Constitution under In re S.A.J.B.
- The juvenile court appointed attorney Edward Crowell and ultimately terminated the mother’s parental rights; it initially directed the petitioners to pay defense costs, later amending to require payment by the State Public Defender, and then ordering the Iowa Department of Management (Department) to pay after fee‑claim litigation.
- The State Public Defender denied payment from the indigent defense fund, asserting counsel appointed on constitutional grounds did not qualify for indigent defense fund payment under §815.11 and §13B.4; Crowell sought judicial review of the denial.
- The Department and the State Public Defender appealed the juvenile court’s fee/order: the court held the Public Defender's appeal was moot, treated the Department’s filing as an original writ of certiorari, and raised standing and jurisdiction issues for review.
- On the merits the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed that indigent parents in contested privately initiated chapter 600A termination proceedings are constitutionally entitled to court‑appointed counsel at public expense on the same terms as in chapter 232 proceedings, and annulled the writ as to the Department’s challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mother was statutorily entitled to appointed counsel under §600A.6A(2) | Crowell: §600A.6A(1) implies an unqualified right to counsel and indigents should get appointment/payment; alternately §600A.6A(2) is severable | Department: Mother did not meet §600A.6A(2) requirements; statute limits appointment to specific circumstances | Court: Mother did not qualify under §600A.6A(2); statutory construction rejects Crowell’s bifurcated‑payment reading |
| Whether constitutional equal protection requires appointment of counsel at public expense in contested chapter 600A proceedings | Crowell: In re S.A.J.B. requires same treatment as chapter 232; fundamental parental liberty demands strict scrutiny | Department: In re S.A.J.B. should be limited or overruled; state’s fiscal interest justifies distinction | Court: Follows In re S.A.J.B.; equal protection mandates appointment for indigent parents in contested chapter 600A proceedings |
| Whether the State Public Defender could be required to pay attorney fees from indigent defense fund | Department: Fees not payable because appointment was constitutional (not statutory under §600A.6A(2)); indigent defense fund limits apply | Crowell: statutory reading could allocate payment to State Public Defender | Court: Payment-entity question not directly before court; Public Defender’s appeal moot because it was not aggrieved |
| Whether Department of Management had standing to seek certiorari though not a party below | Department: Named in juvenile court order to pay; seeks review of order | Petitioners: (implicit) Department was not a party below and thus lacks standing | Court: Department had special, concrete pecuniary injury and may seek certiorari; writ granted for review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.A.J.B., 679 N.W.2d 645 (Iowa 2004) (equal protection requires indigent parents in privately initiated terminations to have appointed counsel like those in state‑initiated proceedings)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (recognizing the unique and profound liberty interest implicated by termination of parental rights)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (Due Process Clause does not mandate appointed counsel in every parental‑rights termination; case‑by‑case balancing applies under federal due process)
- In re J.L.L., 414 N.W.2d 133 (Iowa 1987) (distinguishing uncontested privately initiated termination proceedings where counsel appointment is not constitutionally required)