Free Counsel for Support Cases Denied

Poor parents who are battling the district attorney’s office in civil child support cases cannot seek legal representation at taxpayers’ expense, an Orange County appellate panel ruled in a decision that has statewide ramifications.

The benchmark case, made public Thursday, comes at a time when California counties are under increasing pressure to hold down welfare costs by turning to absent parents to pay child support, resulting in more aggressive efforts to collect payments.

Although some attorneys denounced the decision as a travesty for poor parents, Presiding Justice David G. Sills likened the situation to that of a citizen expecting a publicly paid attorney when being audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

That individual “cannot call on the public treasury to pay for the services of a tax lawyer or accountant,” Sills wrote.

The case involved four indigent men--Renee Clark, Dean Leone, Trai Nguyen and Humberto Gonzales--sued by the Orange County district attorney’s office for failing to pay child support, according to court documents. All four sought taxpayer-funded attorneys to represent them in the civil procedure, but were denied.

In a plea to the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, they claimed that “constitutional due process requires that the government provide them counsel at public expense.”

But the appellate court rejected that argument, stating the right to a public-funded attorney only applies in criminal cases and other situations where “the loss of physical liberty” is involved.

“A parent who is able to support his or her children . . . has no legitimate interest in sloughing off that responsibility on to the taxpayers,” Sills wrote. Sills added that when monetary interests are at stake--in this case, child support payments--the need for a free lawyer has not traditionally been granted.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Sheila P. Sonenshine found the reasoning behind the decision disturbing. Money should not be the determining factor in deciding whether someone deserves representation, the judge wrote.

Donald E. Landis Jr., an Orange County deputy public defender who filed court documents arguing that poor parents deserve public representation, called the decision “a travesty.”

Landis said although initial child support proceedings are civil matters, the information gained in the investigation process can later be used to prosecute the person in criminal cases, which usually involve failure to make adequate payments. If convicted, the parent can end up in jail.

“It’s an unfair playing field,” Landis said. “You have the prosecutor who is highly educated and knows the law very well . . . then you have the noncustodial parent, who usually comes in by himself. He’s poorly educated with limited English skills. He’s probably going to lose.”

Under increasing pressure from the federal and state government to step up collection efforts, Orange County’s family support division recovered $90 million last year, up from $57 million in 1995, according to the department’s records. In the same period, the division’s annual budget grew to $25.6 million from $6.5 million, and 87 staffers and 450 computers were added.

A large portion of the added resources came on the heels of a 1996 study by Children Now, a legal advocacy group, ranking Orange County 47th among California’s 58 counties in terms of collecting child support.

Laurence Watson, the county counsel, hailed this week’s appellate ruling as the right decision for the county and the state.

There’s no reason that taxpayers should foot the bill to support people who have failed to recognize their responsibilities to pay child support, Watson said.

“Had it gone the other way with an adverse decision for Orange County, it would have just magnified throughout the state,” Watson said. “There were a lot of people who had an interest in this case.”