About Due Process and Parental Rights

The Durham County Department of Social Services and Lassiter

The Durham County Department of Social Services and Lassiter were the parties in the case. In 1975, a North Carolina state court determined that the petitioner’s son was likely neglected and ordered him to be placed in Lassiter’s custody. The petitioner was found guilty of second-degree murder the following year and given a prison term of between 25 and 40 years. In 1978, the respondent asked the court to revoke the petitioner’s parental rights. After determining suasponte, it was noted that the petitioner was given enough time to get counsel and that because she failed to access it, it did not affect the proceedings and this was after she was brought from prison to the hearing in court. Although the court did not provide counsel to the petitioner, she had not notified it earlier that she was indigent (Oyez, 2017).

What issues brought this case to court

The petitioner and her mother testified under the court’s questioning after there was cross-examining of a social worker from the respondent by the petitioner at the hearing. After finding that she had not communicated with the respondent about her child since 1975 December, the court went ahead to terminate the petitioner’s parental status.Issues brought forward were that she had failed to meet the obligation of taking care of the child. Since the petitioner was indigent, the due process clause of the 14th amendment required the state to avail counsel for her which the court of appeal in North of Carolina rejected.

What were the main points of disagreement?

The first point of disagreement is that in every parental status termination proceeding, the constitution does not need the appointment of a counsel for indigent parents.Hence, the first instance by the trial court is a decision that has to be taken whether the due process calls for the appointment of the counsel which is subjected to reviews appellative in nature.For example, there is a presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to pick a counsel with regard to what is fundamental fairness of the Due process clause means and requires which might lead to denial of physical liberty if he or she loses. The risk that the procedure used will lead to the erroneous decisions, the government’s interest, and the private interest stake are some of the other elements of the due process decision.

In relation to the above, the petitioner was not denied the due process of law by the trial judge when he had not accessed the services of the counsel for her in the circumstances of this case. Since there were not expert witnesses testifying, the record indicated that the petition to cancel the petitioner’s parental rights contained no allegation of abuse or neglect upon which charges criminal in nature could be linked. The presence of the counsel could not have made a determinative distinction for the petitioner despite the fact that the case presented no specially troublesome points of law. Moreover, the trial court discovered that her failure to make an effort to dispute the cancellation of proceeding was without cause because she had totally refused to appear at the child custody hearing of 1975.

What were the outcomes?

Court opinion delivered by Justice Stewart

The District Court of Durham County, N.C., adjudicated William the son Gail Lassiter Abby and transferred him to the custody of the Durham County after there was evidence that the petitioner had neglected and had not provided him with proper medical care in late spring of 1975. Ms. Lassiter began her sentence of between twenty-five to forty years of imprisonment after she was convicted of second-degree murder a year after 1975. Since she had not had any contact with the minor from that year, the department petitioned court to cancel MS Lassiter’s parental rights in the year 1978 basing on the argument was that she had failed to show significant progress in correcting the issues raised when her child was removed from her by not showing up at the at the child foster care for more than two consecutive years. The issues would include constructive planning for the future of the child, and showing a response that is positive to the Department of Social services diligent efforts through strengthening her relationship with the child (Busby and John, 2009).

Do you agree or disagree with the outcomes? Explain

The researcher does not agree with the outcomes of the case because according to the studies that have been carried out by the journal of Columbian law and social problems, indicated that parental termination proceedings were greatly affected by the presence of counsel who is sought to reduce the number of erroneous determinations.The information discovered by the journey shows that 72.2% of the New York family court judges who preside over parental termination hearings concurred that it’s hard to conduct a fair hearing when apparent has been unrepresented. However, eleven percent disagreed with the assertion, and sixty-six percent responded that it was hard to come up with facts which were disputed by a percentage of twenty-two percent. Hence, therefore, this is enough to say that the court outcomes were unfair to the mother of William.

References

Busby and John C. (2009). “Right to counsel”. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2016-11-13.

Oyez,(2017)“Lassiter v. Department of Social Services.”https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/79-6423. Accessed 11 May. 2017.