Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Watson v. Div. of Family Servs.
813 A.2d 1101 (Del. 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55106
Description
Delaware Family Courts Must Determine Case-by-Case Whether Indigent Parents in Dependency and Neglect Proceedings Have Right to Appointed Counsel
Abstract
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that due process requirements of
the U.S. and Delaware constitutions required the family court to
determine on a case-by-case basis whether indigent parents had a
right to counsel at state expense in dependency and neglect
proceedings. Plaintiff, a mother with a history of mental-health
and drug problems, claimed that a family court termination of her
parental rights over her four children was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence and not the result of an orderly reasoning
process. She also charged that the state’s failure to appoint
counsel for her when it filed the dependency and neglect petition
violated her due process rights. The supreme court found that the
same due process procedural safeguards guaranteed to indigent
parents in termination proceedings applied in dependency and
neglect proceedings. The petition for termination of parental
rights was the end of a process beginning with the dependency and
neglect proceeding. The court said that if an attorney were
appointed to represent the parents at the termination stage only,
the outcome was almost inevitable. The court affirmed that the
procedural rights due a party under the state and federal
constitutions depended on the interests at stake. The temporary and
potentially permanent loss of child custody was a compelling
private interest, as were the state’s interests in the
welfare of children and in an accurate decision. Here the state
violated plaintiff's due process rights by not appointing
counsel for her when her substance-abuse and mental-health problems
were known during the dependency and neglect proceeding.
