Facts: After petitioner Brenda King and respondent Michael King filed for divorce, Michael King moved to be named the primary residential parent for their three children. At the subsequent custody hearing, Michael King was represented by counsel while Brenda King appeared pro se due to her indigency. The trial court awarded Michael King primary residential care of the children and decision-making authority. Brenda King subsequently moved for a new hearing and requested that counsel be appointed at public expense to represent her. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it lacked authority to appoint counsel to represent Brenda King insofar as the legislature has not authorized funding for representation for indigent parties in child custody hearings. Brenda King appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Does an indigent party in a child custody hearing have a constitutional right to representation at public expense?
Conclusion: Justice Charles W. Johnson’s opinion for the Court affirmed the trial court, concluding that no right to representation at public expense exists in a child custody hearing. In particular, the Court held that no such right exists insofar as child custody hearings are private actions to which the state is not a party and the full resources of the state are not brought to bear. Moreover, while a parent’s interest in the provisions of parenting plan is significant, fundamental parental liberty interests are not at stake as such plans do not terminate the parental rights of either parent. Thus, the Court found that while indigent parents have a constitutional right to representation at public expense in termination and dependency proceedings, this right does not extend to child custody hearings.
Docket No. 79978-4 (from Snohomish Case No. 04-3-02385-0)
Petitioner: Brenda King
(Counsel: Kathleen O’Sullivan, Rebecca S. Engrav, and Nicholas Peter Gellert)
Respondent: Michael King
(Counsel: Bradley K. Crosta and Kenneth G. Christensen)
Briefs:
- Answer to Amicus
- Appellant Brief
- Appellants Answer to Amicus
- Appellants Reply
- Attorney General Amicus
- Corrected Brief of ILS Scholars
- Corrected Brief of Respondent
- Corrected Brief of WA
- Errata Sheet of Respondent
- NCRTC Amicus
- NWWLC Amicus
- Respondent Answer to Amicus
- Response to Amici
- Retired Judges Amicus
- State's Response to Amici
- WSAC Amicus
- WSBA Amicus
- WSL Amicus
Argument: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, December 6th, 2007
Prevailing Party: Michael King (Respondent)
Vote: 7-2
Citation: Pending
Court: Alexander3 Court (2005-2007)
Alexander
Johnson
Madsen
Sanders
Bridgewater
(Pro Tem)
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form.