Justices: Constitution doesn’t guarantee lawyer to parents in custody disputes

Thursday, July 14, 2005 | 11:12 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court ruled this morning that parents do not have a constitutional right to have a lawyer in court proceedings to terminate custody of the children.

The court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Ron Parraguirre, said, "We conclude that the right to counsel must be assessed on a case-by-case basis" in line with a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court said this opinion clarifies prior rulings that parents must be afford the right to counsel in order to satisfy due process.

The ruling came from a case of a mother of three children who lost her parental rights in a decision by Clark County Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle. Hardcastle had appointed an attorney to represent the mother, identified only as "Letesheia O."

She appealed Hardcastle's ruling, complaining that her court-appointed lawyer failed to properly represent her in the hearing in which the state Division of Child and Family Services sought to terminate her parental rights and place the children with a grandmother in Mississippi.

Parraguirre said, "Because the right to effective assistance of counsel derives only from a constitutional right to counsel, if Letesheia did not have a constitutional right to counsel, her ineffective-assistance claim must fail."

Letesheia had several brushes with the law prior to Hardcastle's ruling and the state had removed the children four times from her care between August 2000 and May 2002 because of abuse and neglect. Her criminal convictions were also admitted into evidence and she testified she had a long-term cocaine addiction.

The Nevada Supreme Court said the mother had a "strong interest" in retaining custody of her children. And, the court said, terminating parental rights is akin to a "civil death penalty." But it added the state has a strong interest in protecting the children and ensuring they have a stable family life.

The court said evidence of Letesheia's past record could not have been kept out of the court hearing, even if her lawyer had objected.

The court also said Hardcastle properly allowed into evidence details of Letesheia's felony convictions, including theft to get money for drugs.

In the decision, the court said, "We emphasize that in many instances, including cases that involve medical, psychiatric or other expert testimony, complex facts or evidentiary questions, or a parent who for another reason is unable to represent herself, appointed counsel may be required to satisfy due process.

"However, balancing the interests involved in this case reveals that Letesheia was not constitutionally entitled to counsel."