Friday, December 7, 2007

King: No Right to Court-Appointed Lawyer in Child Custody Dispute

State-paid divorce lawyers not a right: Court rules such cases are private, civil disputes, Seattle P-I, Dec. 6, 2007.

People who can't afford a lawyer to help them navigate divorce proceedings and fight for the custody of their children don't have the right to one at public expense, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

A 7-2 majority found that divorces are private, civil disputes that don't call for state-paid attorneys unless state lawmakers decide to change the law.

The controversial case drew much attention as one that could have expanded much-need legal services for poor people but also cost taxpayers a hefty sum.
The president of the Washington State Bar Association issued a statement:
This case highlights the need to greatly expand access to civil legal services in Washington, particularly when basic human needs are at stake such as in child custody disputes. Every day, people around the state appear in court without legal representation. And they often do so by necessity, rather than choice. Those individuals are also often unable to effectively present their cases in a court. Access to the justice system is a fundamental right, and no person should be denied access simply because they are poor. The WSBA will continue to work with the Legislature to expand access to our court system in Washington.
Legal Representation for Low-Income People Remains a Challenge, WSBA press release, Dec. 6, 2007.

The case is In re King, --- Wn. 2d ---, Washington Courts: majority (C. Johnson, J.), concurrence (Sanders, J.), concurrence (Madsen, J.) (Dec. 6, 2007).

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Washington State Supreme Court scored for affirming the court's fondness for our two-tiered, Pay-To-Play system of justice in this decision, which can be found at

It mirrors the NY Times piece which also details the pay-to-play atmosphere of the court.

However the good news is Americans appreciate being able to respond to the Supreme Court's latest profound bias towards litigants via; which is empowering people with hope.

Although our government is broken, what's also clear is our people want it to work. The difference is now they can participate in its repair by ridding the system of bad judges.

And with a data-driven collection system on judges that bypasses state commissions, they are.

The good news is because of civic minded attorneys and members of the public; voters are already changing the outcome of elections, via

Last year, verified reports from the local populace helped return one judge who had been on the bench eight years, to private practice after he demonstrated his unwillingness or inability to remain impartial. (One video report showed him playing Solitaire on the Court computer during a custody trial.) We also received a copy of the judge's original eleven page reprimand which the judicial commission had helpfully reduced to a one page "Summary."

The site differs from "anonymous" sites criticizing judges. It deals in fact and reports, which cost $45.00 and are verified. Reporters love it. And why shouldn't they? does the research.