Liming v. Damos
133 Ohio St. 3d 509
Ohio2012Background
- Liming was held in civil contempt in 2008 for failure to pay child support, with a purge condition for one year.
- A June 2010 purge hearing imposed ten days of jail, with 20 days suspended on condition of continued compliance with the purge terms.
- Liming requested appointed counsel at the June 2010 purge hearing; the court denied the request.
- The purge hearing addressed whether Liming complied with purge conditions, not whether the contempt itself was criminal.
- The Fourth District held the purge hearing retained the civil character of the original contempt proceeding, and thus no right to appointed counsel arose under the Sixth Amendment.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted discretionary review to resolve the civil vs. criminal character and the due process right to counsel at purge hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a purge hearing is civil or criminal contempt. | Liming contends purge is criminal warranting counsel. | Damos/agency argues purge remains civil. | Purge hearing retains civil character if original contempt was civil. |
| Whether inability to pay can convert purge into criminal contempt. | Liming asserts inability to pay should render purge criminal and require counsel. | Agency contends burden to prove ability to pay remains with contemnor and evidence shown does not convert to criminal. | Inability to pay is a defense in civil contempt burden on contemnor; no criminal conversion here. |
| Whether due process requires state-appointed counsel at a civil-contempt purge hearing for indigent parents. | Liming argues due process requires counsel under Mathews v. Eldridge and Turner v. Rogers. | State argues no per se right to counsel; safeguards suffice and burden weighs against appointed counsel. | Due process does not require appointed counsel at civil-contempt purge hearing when original proceeding was civil and safeguards exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) (due process does not automatically require counsel at civil contempt; safeguards may suffice)
- Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (Ohio 1980) (distinguishes civil vs. criminal contempt; purge portions can be civil)
- Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist. Council 51, 35 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1973) (contempt remedies resemble civil and criminal hybrids; sui generis nature)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probation revocation; due process safeguards in hearings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation; conditional liberty and due process protections)
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (due process and indigency considerations in civil proceedings)
- Cook v. Cook, 66 Ohio St. 566 (1902) (burden to prove inability to pay in civil contempt rests with contemnor)
- Turner v. Rogers (additional context), — U.S. — (2011) (Turner analysis and safeguards for ability-to-pay issue)