L.E.S. v. C.D.M.
390 P.3d 278
Utah2016Background
- In 2013 the child’s stepfather (C.D.M.) filed to adopt K.A.S.; the child’s biological father, L.E.S., contested and a district-court termination proceeding followed.
- The district court initially found L.E.S. indigent and appointed counsel based on the county attorney’s representation, but the county later intervened and successfully moved to vacate the appointment; appointed counsel did not oppose that motion.
- L.E.S. (incarcerated during much of the proceedings) tried repeatedly to obtain counsel and sought a continuance; the court denied the continuance and proceeded to a bench termination trial in September 2014, after which the court terminated his parental rights.
- On appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, L.E.S. raised ineffective-assistance and constitutional claims: Equal Protection, federal Due Process (right to counsel), and Utah state Due Process; the Court reached the unpreserved constitutional issues under an "exceptional circumstances" exception.
- Applying the Mathews/Eldridge balancing test as articulated in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, the Utah Supreme Court held that the Eldridge factors overcame the presumption against appointing counsel in civil cases and that denying counsel violated L.E.S.’s federal due process rights; the decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to appointed counsel under federal Due Process | L.E.S. argued Lassiter/Eldridge balancing required appointment because his parental liberty interest, incarceration-related communication barriers, and risk of error were high | State/Adoptive parents relied on presumption against counsel in civil cases and lack of statutory right in district court | Held: Court applied Lassiter and Eldridge factors, concluded factors overcome presumption, and that denial violated federal Due Process; reversed and remanded |
| Preservation / exceptional-circumstances exception | L.E.S. argued the Court should reach unpreserved constitutional claims because counsel was appointed then withdrawn and counsel failed to preserve the issue, leaving him no procedural vehicle | Respondents argued issues were not preserved and should be barred on appeal | Held: Court invoked narrow "exceptional circumstances" exception due to the unusual procedural posture (appointment then vacatur, counsel’s failure to respond) and reviewed the constitutional claims |
| Equal Protection challenge to juvenile-court counsel statutes | L.E.S. contended statutory schema (counsel guaranteed in some juvenile/state-initiated cases but not in district-court private adoptions) created unconstitutional classification | State argued differing statutes and procedures justify distinctions and federal Due Process resolution made equal-protection analysis unnecessary | Held: Court avoided merits of Equal Protection claim, deciding federal Due Process resolved the case (constitutional-avoidance) |
| Right to counsel under Utah Constitution / state Due Process | L.E.S. urged state constitutional protections also required appointed counsel | Respondents urged state Due Process did not extend to a civil right to appointed counsel and legislative role controls | Held: Majority declined to reach state Due Process (decided on federal due process); concurring justice urged state claim should have been addressed first; dissent would have rejected state Due Process claim on originalist grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (adopting Eldridge balancing to determine when Due Process requires appointed counsel in parental-termination proceedings)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for what procedural protections due process requires)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (recognition of parental liberty interest in custody and family association)
- Tschaggeny v. Milbank Ins. Co., 163 P.3d 615 (Utah 2007) (motions for reconsideration not recognized under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure; cited on procedural vehicle issue)
- In re Adoption of J.S., 358 P.3d 1009 (Utah 2014) (discussing attorney-agency principles and appellate issues; cited re: counsel-as-agent and preservation principles)