State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services v. Tanya S. Currier and Ronnie Hauck
295 P.3d 837
Wyo.2013Background
- DFS sought review of a district court ruling that indigent parents in child-support civil contempt cases are entitled to court-appointed counsel when incarceration is a possible penalty.
- The district court held Turner v. Rogers required counsel for indigent defendants in such proceedings and ordered DFS to arrange counsel and provide payment.
- Father appeared pro se; the district court appointed a public defender, then vacated and reappointed counsel, creating an asymmetry in representation.
- Wyoming statutes require a showing of willfulness and provide procedural safeguards to determine ability to pay, including forms and a court finding of ability to pay.
- This Court analyzes whether due process requires counsel under Turner and whether Wyoming’s safeguards suffice to avoid wrongful incarceration.
- The Supreme Court in Turner rejected an automatic right to counsel in civil contempt for child support, given safeguards; Wyoming reverses the district court and preserves safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does due process require counsel for indigent in civil contempt with possible incarceration? | Currier argues Turner requires counsel for indigent obligor when jail is possible. | DFS argues safeguards plus indigence determination suffice; no automatic counsel right is required. | No automatic right to counsel; safeguards suffice. |
| If not, are Wyoming’s safeguards adequate to prevent wrongful incarceration of indigent obligors? | Counsel is needed to prevent erroneous deprivation of liberty. | Procedural safeguards (notice, financial form, hearing response, express ability-to-pay finding) mitigate risk. | Wyoming safeguards are adequate; no appointment of counsel required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) (due process may not require counsel in civil contempt with safeguards)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (counsel ordinarily not required in parole/probation revocation; due process depends on safeguards)
- Mathews v. Eldredge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for due process safeguards)
- Secrest v. Secrest, 781 P.2d 1339 (Wyo. 1989) (requirement of an express ability-to-pay finding)
- Erhart v. Evans, 2001 WY 79 (Wy. 2001) (modification proceedings and ongoing obligation considerations)
- G.V.G. v. J.L.R., 2005 WY 14 (Wy. 2005) (previous Wyoming discussion on indigence and counsel in civil contempt)