Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing the Right to Counsel for Indigent Parents in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings

Authors

Jake Toth

Abstract

Fairness principles enumerated in the seminal case Gideon v. Wainwright stand for the proposition that fundamental fairness and due process require appointment of counsel for indigent litigants. However, this principle has been constrained to criminal contexts. Many other types of litigation are just as impactful as a criminal proceeding, including juvenile dependency proceedings. Nevertheless, indigent parents do not enjoy an unqualified representation right.

This Comment traces the history of the representation right and how it has been treated in a juvenile dependency context, beginning with Gideon itself and examining other cases such as Eldridge and Lassiter. It then examines how state judiciaries and legislatures have handled the representation right in the wake of Lassiter and the quality of representation in a select few jurisdictions.

Lastly, this Comment argues that the status quo is untenable as both a practical matter and a matter of principle. Practically, access to adequate representation is geographically disparate, with many indigent parents suffering the legal consequences as a result. Principally, Gideon’s fairness and due process values are diminished by controlling caselaw denying indigent parents an unqualified representation right.

Instead, federal law can be used to both guarantee the representation right and secure federal funding for state initiatives. States can and should create centralized systems of representation to better serve indigent parents and improve outcomes.

Recommended Citation

Jake Toth, Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing the Right to Counsel for Indigent Parents in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings, 129 Dick. L. Rev. 1119 (2025).
Available at: https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol129/iss3/9