About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 N. Ky. L. Rev. 435 (1981)
The Pitfalls of Timidity: The Ramifications of Lassiter v. Department of Social Services

handle is hein.journals/nkenlr8 and id is 447 raw text is: THE PITFALLS OF TIMIDITY: THE RAMIFICATIONS OF LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES By Lowell F. Schechter* PART I. INTRODUCTION In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services,' the United States Supreme Court was confronted with the question whether an indi- gent parent has a constitutional right to counsel when the state moves to terminate that parent's parental rights. The Court's an- swer was equivocal: it could not deny that due process might re- quire the appointment of counsel in some cases, but it would not affirm that the Constitution requires the appointment of counsel in every termination proceeding. While the Court might set down a general standard for determining when due process required the appointment of counsel, it would not adopt any firm rules. Thus, the decision whether counsel is required was left to be made in the first instances by the trial court in each case.2 It is the contention of this article that the Supreme Court's equivocation threatens not only the rights of indigent partents, but also the welfare of their children and even the interests of the state. Part II of this article describes the chain of events leading up to the Supreme Court decision: the initial state intervention removing William Lassiter from the care of his mother Abby Gail, the devel- opments that occurred while William was in foster care, the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, the testimony presented at the termination hearing, and the decisions rendered during the appeal process. Part III critically examines the Supreme Court decision. Section A of Part III summarizes Justice Stewart's majority opinion. Sec- tion B analyzes the reasoning in refusing to recognize an absolute right to counsel and evaluates the merits of the case-by-case ap- proach adopted in its stead. Section C offers an alternative ap- proach that could have been used to resolve the right to counsel issue. * Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern Ken- tucky University. B.A. New York University, 1965; J.D. Harvard Law School 1969. The au- thor wishes to thank Leowan Evans, counsel for Ms. Lassiter and Thomas Russell Odom, counsel for the Durham County Department of Social Services, for their comments on the case and his research assistant, Greg Gabbard, for his help. 1. 101 S. Ct. 2153 (1981) (rehearing denied). 2. 101 S. Ct. at 2162.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most