M.L.B. v. S.L.J.

M.L.B. v. S.L.J.

Argued October 7, 1996
Decided December 16, 1996
Full case name M. L. B., petitioner v. S. L. J., individually and as next friend of the minor children, S. L. J. and M. L. J., et ux.
Citations

519 U.S. 102 (more)

117 S. Ct. 555; 136 L. Ed. 2d 473; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 7647; 65 U.S.L.W. 4035; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9032; 96 Daily Journal DAR 14946; 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 221
Prior history Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189
Holding
Just as a State may not block an indigent petty offender's access to an appeal afforded others, see Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 195-196, so Mississippi may not deny M. L. B., because of her poverty, appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence on which the trial court based its parental termination decree.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Breyer
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Rehnquist
Dissent Thomas, joined by Scalia; Rehnquist (except part II)

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding a controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner, M.L.B., argued that the Mississippi Chancery Courts could not terminate her parental rights on the basis that she was unable to pay the court fees. M.L.B. had been sued by S.L.J. to terminate M.L.B.'s parental rights and gain the ability to adopt the children. The judge declared in favor of S.L.J. under the premise that the decree was fair as it was based on the fulfilling of the burden of proof by the father's and his second wife through "clear and convincing evidence."<ref name=Cornell /

Despite this statement, the Court never elaborated on this evidence or clearly explained why M.L.B.'s parental rights had been dismissed. When M.L.B. went to appeal, she was unable to pay for the record preparation fees of $2,352.36 and was denied. She then went to appeal under in forma pauperis but was again denied on the grounds that in forma pauperis is demanded only in criminal, not civil, cases. The case was then brought to the United States Supreme Court, where M.L.B. held that an inability to pay court fees should not be decisive of something as precious as parental rights. She used the guidelines set out in the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to fight her case. The Supreme Court decided in the petitioner's favor and stated that in matters regarding parental rights, a court may not stop a party from appealing the case based on financial means.

Because this ruling extended in forma pauperis to civil cases, there was a question of how liberally it could be applied. It was then clarified that in forma pauperis may be applied to civil cases only if state controls or intrusions on family relationships are involved.[1] The Supreme Court decided to rule this way, as the family unit is considered so fundamental that its liberty interests should be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. If these appellate rights were not protected, it was considered to be just as devastating as if a criminal's appellate rights were not considered.

Background

Historical context

On November 15, 1993, respondent S.L.J., and biological father of the children, sued petitioner M.L.B., their biological mother, in a Mississippi Chancery Court for adoptive rights of the petitioner's natural children. After a three-day trial, the court decided in favor of S.L.J.. M.L.B. filed for an appeal where she intended to argue that the Court’s decision was unsupported by the evidence, or lack thereof. The fees the Court charged her for the record preparations was too high for the petitioner to pay and, determined to keep her parental rights, she asked for in forma pauperis. When she went to the Mississippi Supreme Court, M.L.B.'s motions were denied, but on April 1, 1996, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the petitioner's case through writ of certiorari. M.L.B. went into the case, ready to back her stance through the Fourteenth Amendment. In section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is stated, "No state shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[2]

When making its decision, the Supreme Court also took into account many cases that were related to issues with the Fourteenth Amendment. It looked at Griffin v. Illinois, in which it was decided that if an appeal was granted, the indigent defendants must be granted the same level of appellate review as defendants who could afford every record or transcript. It also considered Mayer v. Chicago, in which a destitute criminal's right to appeal was upheld again. This case came at time when the need for such changes in the law was growing.

The court also took into account cases where the family was involved. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham Cty, 452 U.S. 18, which stated that indigent defendants in a parental termination case are not required by the Constitution to be provided with counsel, but they should be determined by the circumstances. In the 1990s, the divorce rate was in the high 40%.[3]

In 1993, the year of the original case, the poverty rate was at 15.1%, and there were 39.3 million people living under the official poverty level.[4] Although the window this case opened for in forma pauperis in civil cases was narrow, it was also highly necessary.

Conflict

When M.L.B. was unable to appeal because of her financial difficulties, she felt that at least in forma pauperis should apply, which could not, however, apply to an issue such as parenthood because it was reserved exclusively for criminal cases. The conflict then arose of whether or not a state, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, could condition appeals made by indigent persons if a court decrees termination of parental rights. The court was reluctant to extend in forma pauperis to any civil case for fear that it would open the door for too many minor civil cases. When making its decision, the Supreme Court looked at this one situation and considered family a fundamental right of a citizen.

Opinion

Majority opinion

A 6-3 opinion decided that "just as a state may not block an indigent petty offender's access to an appeal afforded others, so Mississippi may not deny M.L.B., because of her poverty, appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence on which the trial court found her unfit to remain a parent."[2] The court stated that due process could not be halted by a lack of funds in a case where the termination of parental rights was at risk. Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion and was joined by O'Connor, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens. The concurrence was written by Anthony Kennedy.

A case that contributed to the court's opinion was Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956). Before that case, only convicted felons sentenced to death would have access to an appellate review if they were unable to pay for transcripts. The court then decided that all criminal cases, even noncapital ones, would be allowed the same right in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. The other largely influential case was Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971), which decided that any offence, even "quasi-criminal" ones in nature, may be appealed regardless of financial means.[2] M.L.B. argued that what was at stake for her was far greater than what was at stake for a "quasi-criminal" and that her right to appeal should in no way be determined by her wallet. The court made their ruling based on that argument and reversed the one made by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Concurrence

The concurrence was written by Kennedy. In it, he reiterates the impact that both Griffin v. Illinois and Mayer v. Chicago had on the case. He also goes on to say that the court must reverse the previous ruling because of the importance of the rights inherent in any family related matters. Although it is understood that appellate review is not always necessary, if it is granted, the court must not bar litigants from fulfilling their appeal by a lack of funds in cases as grave as M.L.B. v. S.L.J. was. In matters regarding the family, cases like Boddie v. Connecticut and Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham City are cited as grounds for the decision.[2]

Dissenting opinion

The dissenting opinion was written by Thomas and joined by Rehnquist and Scalia. In it, they contend that if they allow for free transcripts in a civil appeal in this one case, it will be applied too liberally to other civil cases. There is also issue over M.L.B.'s claims that she should be protected under Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses as there is no clear explanation how they apply. Also, nowhere in the Due Process Clause is a state even obliged to provide for an appeal.[2] Furthermore, the petitioner has gone through an entire court process that was provided for her ensuring her due process. The state's duty to M.L.B. has thus been fulfilled. M.L.B.'s motives, as well, are questioned since the petitioner may care less about her due process and more about delaying the sting of termination of her parental rights. The Supreme Court rulings cited in the majority's opinion are deemed as irrelevant, as they apply to criminal, not civil, cases.

Historical Significance

The ruling was fit for its time, as it now opened the doors for destitute men and women to fight for their parental rights. During the 1990s, poverty levels hit remarkable lows, but divorce rates remained high.

Notes

  1. ↑ "M.L.B. v. S.L.J.". Casebriefs LLC. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
  3. ↑ "Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990" (PDF). National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
  4. ↑ "Population Profile of the United States". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 4 November 2011.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, February 03, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.