An interesting legal question

Post Reply New Topic

Should someone facing jail time for failing to pay child support be entitled to a court appointed lawyer?

The Supreme Judicial court (I'm assuming Massachusetts,but article does not say) on thursday will hear arguments in a case that could create a new right to a court appointed attorney,as of now your only entitled to a lawyer in criminal cases.

In this case,Department of revenue vs. Joshua Grullon argued that he should have been entitled to a court appointed lawyer because he faced jail time.Martin Healy,general council to the Massachusetts bar association,which filled a amicus brief in support Grullon,said the goal is to level the playing field between the dept. of revenue and the person oweing child support.

We recognized whenever an indigent person is facing any type of imprisonment or loss of liberty,they should be entitled to council before they risk that liberty.

masslive.com

Sounds like something similar in Florida that to my knowledge hasn't been challenged in court. Florida law allows someone with certain types of disabilities, such as autism, to have a psychiatrist or psychologist present during police questioning, but it is the individual's responsibility to pay for the doctor in all occasions.

Anybody who is an American citizen (and probably legal alien, too) is entitled to counsel once detained on, or charged with a crime, based on Miranda rights.

This is Federal, and not state-specific.

People who do not pay court-mandated child support are in contempt of court, which is a criminal offense anywhere.

The parent who has not received the child support should get the court-appointed lawyer. Let's get real.

Absolutely. I agree. No doubt.

Nobody is entitled to a free lawyer unless they've been charged with something. Or are being questioned pertaining to possibly being charged with something.

Should he get a lawyer? Of course he should. But it will cost him. I don't believe anybody would go "pro bono" on a person not paying child support. Going "pro bono" means the lawyer works for free.

I am not for men not paying child support. They are creeps, to say the least.

This question shouldn't have presumptions of gender. There are many women who pay child support to other women, or to men. If there is a court-ordered child support obligation and the payor isn't paying, why should the recipient incur more legal fees to get that money? It seems they've already paid for a court order in the first place, and it isn't being enforced.

Recipient parents shouldn't have to pay legal fees to collect child support which is legally owing for their child. That hurts children and families. The courts should get their act together and put more effort into the enforcement of existing orders, or at best give free counsel to both parties, in the best interest of children.

Unfortunately, both Family Court and Tax Court are places where the accused are presumed guilty and rarely are allowed to prove their innocence.  Combine the two, and even Franz Kafka would be awed.