Turner v. Rogers

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not automatically require appointed counsel for indigent noncustodial parents in civil contempt proceedings for child support, even if incarceration is threatened, where the opposing parent is unrepresented and alternative safeguards are provided. The Court found that under the specific circumstances, Turner's incarceration violated due process because he had neither counsel nor access to alternative procedures like notice on ability-to-pay. Justice Thomas, dissenting, argued the Court should not reach the alternative safeguards issue raised only by an amicus curiae.