L.E.S. v. C.D.M.
390 P.3d 278
| Utah | 2016Background
- In 2013 C.D.M. (stepfather) filed to adopt K.A.S.; biological father L.E.S. contested and a petition to terminate his parental rights followed in district court.
- District court initially found L.E.S. indigent and appointed counsel based on a county attorney’s advice, but the county later moved to intervene and argued the statute did not authorize court‑appointed counsel in district court; the court reversed the appointment after the appointed counsel did not oppose the motion.
- L.E.S., incarcerated during proceedings, repeatedly attempted to retain counsel, sought continuances, and reported communication barriers due to prison phone policies; the court denied his continuance request and proceeded to a bench trial in September 2014.
- The district court terminated L.E.S.’s parental rights; he appealed. The Utah Supreme Court accepted the case under the exceptional‑circumstances preservation exception.
- Applying Lassiter and Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the Utah Supreme Court held that the denial of counsel violated L.E.S.’s federal due process rights, reversed, and remanded for further proceedings including an indigence determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the constitutional right to counsel applies in privately initiated district‑court parental‑rights termination proceedings | L.E.S.: due process requires appointment of counsel under Lassiter/Eldridge balancing given strong parental interest, weak state interest in denying counsel, and high risk of error | C.D.M./Uintah County: no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in district court; appointment not required absent preservation | Court: Exceptional‑circumstances exception allows review; under Lassiter/Eldridge balancing federal due process required appointment here; denial was reversible error |
| Whether the preservation rule bars appellate review of constitutional claim | L.E.S.: appellate review allowed under exceptional‑circumstances because counsel was initially appointed then withdrawn and counsel failed to defend appointment | Appellees: claim not preserved; no clear basis to invoke exceptional circumstances | Court: invoked exceptional‑circumstances exception due to unique procedural posture (appointed counsel abdicated argument, party thereafter lacked vehicle to raise claim) |
| Whether state equal protection or Utah due process independently required counsel | L.E.S.: also argued state constitutional and equal protection grounds | Appellees: statutory scheme and preservation defeat those claims | Court: did not decide state due process or equal protection because federal due process resolution dispositive and to avoid further delay |
| Remedy and next steps on remand | L.E.S.: requests reinstatement of counsel and further proceedings | Appellees: opposed additional relief beyond affirming proceedings | Held: reversed; remanded for district court to determine current indigence and apply Lassiter factors to decide appointment going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (establishes Eldridge balancing test for right to appointed counsel in parental‑rights termination proceedings)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process test weighing private interest, governmental interest, and risk of erroneous deprivation)
- In re E.K.S., 387 P.3d 1032 (Utah 2016) (Utah Supreme Court decision referenced regarding Juvenile Court Act interpretation)