Search

The article focuses on the current border crisis and argues that U.S. legal institutions are failing to provide adequate services to unaccompanied immigrant children. It mentions the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, North Carolina on negative presumption and its subsequent effects on civil litigants. It also mentions decision of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case Turner v. Rogers on right to appointed counsel.

This Note examines the practical consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in Turner v. Rogers. In 2011, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to counsel for parents who face civil contempt for failure to pay child support. Although those parents face incarceration, the Court believed that "substitute procedural safeguards" could adequately reduce the risk of wrongful incarceration. Five years have passed since Turner, and although commentators have spilled much ink debating the right to counsel in civil contempt cases, virtually no research exists on Turner's real-world impact or the effectiveness of the Court's suggested safeguards. This Note attempts to fill that gap by documenting how states, judges, and practitioners have responded to the decision. It begins by providing the first comprehensive catalogue of states that actually guarantee the right to counsel for civil contempt hearings. From there, it surveys sixty practitioners in forty-four states to learn how states handle representation in contempt cases. Finally, it draws on extensive interviews with eight current and former family court judges in South Carolina to assess how the state has implemented Turner's mandate. Using those sources, this Note concludes that the Supreme Court was correct that the right to counsel is no panacea for procedural unfairness--but the Court's substitute procedural safeguards do not adequately offset the risk of wrongful incarceration. It suggests how the Court can modify its suggested procedural reforms as well as how states and private practitioners can compensate for the representation gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the statutory and constitutional rights of appointed counsel in immigration proceedings in the U.S. Topics include Mathews v. Eldridge court case which deals with due process balancing test; Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder class action lawsuit in which the federal district judge ordered legal representation to immigrant detainees with mental disabilities who are facing deportation; and Turner v. Rogers court case on safeguarding deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases.

The article examines the disproportionate values the legal system assigns to paternal roles in the U.S. Topics discussed include paternal roles as defined by the family law and child support system; child support laws and enforcement of parenting-time orders; effect of such laws on low-income fathers, mothers, children, and the state; and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case Turner v. Rogers.

This Article seeks to make two contributions to the literature on the role of counsel. First, it brings together civil Gideon research and recent studies of collateral consequences. Like criminal convictions, civil judgments result in far-reaching collateral consequences, and these should be included in any evaluation of the private interests that civil lawyers protect. Second, this Article argues that the prioritization of criminal defense counsel over civil counsel reflects a mistaken view of lawyers' primary role as a shield against government power. Lawyers also serve a vital role in checking the power of private actors. As private actors increasingly take over public functions, their ubiquity in civic life and power over the lives of individuals grows, and the need to check that power deserves increased attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the development of new roles for non-lawyers to increase access to justice in the U.S. Topics discussed include the status quo of non-lawyer practice, the challenges and opportunities for regulatory reform and the role of non-lawyers in nonprofit settings. It also discusses the U.S Supreme Court decision in case Turner v. Rogers, addressing right to counsel for people facing civil contempt charges, and establishment of a safe harbor from the unauthorized practice laws.

The article discusses the requirement to increase parental contributions towards children's university educations through federal tax code. It also makes specific reference of the U.S. Supreme Court cases including Blessing v. Freestone, Turner v. Rogers and Troxel v. Granville. It also mentions the need of financial aid in the form of loans, grants, and scholarships to students from goverment and academic institutions.

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court held in Turner v. Rogers that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the government to provide appointed counsel in civil contempt actions -- despite the possibility that a contemnor can be jailed indefinitely for continuing failure to obey a court order. This Note asserts that in civil contempt cases against indigent defendants, many of the protections that appointed counsel would have provided can and should be captured through additional cost-effective procedural changes beyond the minimal procedure the Court required in Turner. This Note begins, in Part II, by outlining existing procedural due process jurisprudence of civil contempt and briefly tracking the historical development of the constitutional right to appointed counsel. Part III describes possible errors a court can make that may lead to improper confinement for civil contempt and explores how the presence of a defense attorney can guard against these errors. Finally, Part IV proposes a procedural framework that attempts to encapsulate the benefits of an appointed attorney and examines both the costs and the effects of these proposals. The Note concludes with a discussion of how these changes can be implemented in order to effectively protect the due process rights of indigent accused contemnors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses doctrinal differences between the right to counsel in the criminal and civil proceedings in the U.S. It informs about why the Court uses different language in criminal and civil proceedings and reflects on illustrates the values and role of lawyers in civil justice jurisprudence. It highlights the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Court case Turner v. Rogers which express how a consequence-driven approach applies in right to counsel.

The article discusses two direct rights of action in relation to child support (CS) enforcement in the U.S. as of June 2013, focusing on state and federal enforcement of CS obligations, as well as a comparative analysis of CS enforcement lawsuits in America and Great Britain. The constitutionality of the failure to provide legal counsel to indigent parents is addressed in the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case Turner v. Rogers. Noncustodial parents and efforts to modify CS obligations are examined.

This Note uses Turner v. Rogers as a case-study to demonstrate how the Court's procedural due process analysis, as laid out in Mathews v. Eldridge, is deficient. The application of the Eldridge balancing approach can appear arbitrary when its outcomes are compared across similar situations or when analyzed in depth in a single instance. Nowhere is this more evident than in cases dealing with the right to an attorney. This Note makes the case that the Eldridge factors insufficiently guide and constrain the Court and thus are inadequate in advancing the original purpose of the Due Process Clause. On a doctrinal level, this Note suggests that the Court's procedural due process analysis should mirror its substantive due process approach. This would force the Court to undertake a more rigid analysis of procedural due process cases and would properly frame those issues in terms of the underlying rights that are at risk. On a practical level, the Note proposes a series of steps that policy makers, lawyers, and academics can take to expand access to counsel and to encourage the Court to alter both its ruling in Turner and its approach to procedural due process cases as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Turner v. Rogers, in which the court extended the right to appoint a counsel in the immigration removal proceedings. It discusses the procedural due process rights for noncitizens and analyzes the history of their right to appointed counsel in civil proceedings in the U.S.

The article focuses on the legal community education and access to justice (A2J) crisis in the U.S. it presents information on the research and experimentation on the individual service delivery, institutional program design, and models of advocacy under the decision of Gideon v. Wainwright and Turner v. Rogers. It addresses to the University of Miami School of Law's Historic Black Church Program (HBCP) and West Grove Trolley Garage case to analyze the scarcity in A2J.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of Turner v. Rogers and analyses its impact on access to justice and civil-right-to-counsel communities in the U.S. The Court recognized certain procedural safeguards that may provide requisite protection to a defendant in a civil case regarding the failure of payment for child support. The case also sheds light upon the appointment of counsel in order to comply with fairness procedures.

The article explores the institutional design to evaluate how choices are made regarding the liability to receive access to justice and civil legal aid, with special focus on low-income people. It discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of Turner v. Rogers, which manifests that parents who are imprisoned for not able to support a child's payment, need not require a lawyer to obtain "meaningful access" to a court. It also applies the ideology of an institutional design to decision-making process.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Turner v. Rogers, which dealt with unpaid child support funds and civil contempt. Topics include the constitutionality of civil contempt orders, the fundamental fairness doctrine, and due process. Information is provided on the court's consideration of an individual's ability to pay debts.

The article discusses the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case Turner v. Rogers which deals with issues such as the right to counsel, self-representation in a courtroom, and access to justice. The court in Turner determined that there is a due process right to court procedural safeguards when a possible deprivation of a self-represented litigant's constitutional rights is involved.

The article discusses the funding for court-appointed attorneys in U.S. litigation matters and several concerns over the ability of pro se litigants to access justice as of March 2012. The civil right to counsel is addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Turner v. Rogers, while the criminal right to counsel is analyzed in the case Gideon v. Wainwright. Civil law reforms in America are also examined in relation to pro se proceedings.