Case Summary: Parents requested that the Court appoint counsel for them in a termination of parental rights hearing. The parents resided together and made about $26,000 - $40,000 annually. The Court found that the Delaware Supreme Court has recognized the holding in Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services that due process does not require the appointment of counsel for every parental rights termination proceeding and that decision lies in the discretion of the trial Court. In the Matter of Carolyn S.S., Del. Supr., 498 A.2d 1095 (1984). Under that holding, the Court must consider 1) the private interest at stake; 2) the government's interest; and 3) the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decision. These factors are to be weighed against each other and their net weight then balanced against the presumption that there is a right to counsel only where the indigent may lose his/her personal freedom. The Delaware Supreme Court recognized that the majority of states had requirements by statute that counsel be appointed for parental termination proceedings. The Court stated that it has become practice for the Family Court to appoint counsel for indigent parents in proceedings for the termination of parental rights. A parent's interest in their child is a fundamental one that undeniably warrants deference, and absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. The Court used the definition of "indigent" set out for criminal proceedings which is whether the parents are financially able to retain private counsel without impairing their financial ability to provide the economic necessities of life for themselves and their family. The Court found that the family is unlikely to be able to financially retain counsel and therefore appointed an attorney for them.

Back to Case Law