Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431

South Carolina family courts enforce child support orders via civil contempt, potentially imprisoning nonpaying parents who can pay but do not.
Turner was ordered to pay weekly support to Rogers; arrears rose to over $5,700 by 2008, with subsequent imprisonment for contempt.
Turner and Rogers appeared without counsel at the 2008 contempt hearing; the court did not make a clear explicit finding of Turner’s ability to pay.
A prewritten contempt order stated Turner’s employment status but left the ability-to-pay finding blank; Turner received a 12-month sentence with purge conditions.
Turner appealed after release; state supreme court rejected a right-to-counsel claim, distinguishing civil from criminal contempt and deferring to procedural safeguards.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and held that due process does not automatically require counsel but may require alternative safeguards to ensure a fair ability-to-pay determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process requires state-funded counsel for indigents in civil contempt for child support	Turner argues indigent defendants must have counsel when incarceration is possible	South Carolina and supporters contend no categorical right to counsel in civil contempt; alternatives suffice	No automatic right to counsel; due process allowed alternatives with safeguards
Whether alternative procedural safeguards can satisfy due process without counsel	Turner contends safeguards are insufficient without counsel	State may rely on notice, financial-information form, opportunity to respond, and express ability-to-pay finding	Three safeguards (notice, financial inquiry form, opportunity to respond, explicit ability-to-pay finding) can suffice
Whether the case is moot and, if not, whether the issue is reviewable	Turner finished sentence; no collateral consequences dead the claim	Dispute is capable of repetition yet evading review; not moot	Case is not moot; fits the capable-of-repetition, evading-review exception

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (limits on due process in non-criminal civil proceedings; probation reform context)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (indigent counsel rights tied to risk of losing physical liberty)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Mathews framework for evaluating procedural due process safeguards)
Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) (civil contempt aims to coerce compliance, not punish)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (right to counsel in juvenile delinquency analogous to criminal adjudication)
Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (Sixth Amendment rights apply in criminal contempt; due process considerations differ in civil context)