Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Does a state law that requires one who appeals an order that permanently terminates parental rights to pay an advance records preparation fee violate the Constitution?

Background.  The appellant forever lost her parental rights of her two minor children through a court order.  The appellant wanted to appeal the decision but could not because she could not pay the advance record preparation fee (estimated at $2,352.36) as required to make appeals in civil cases under Mississippi law.  Since the appellant did not pay the fee, her appeal was dismissed.

So, the appellant sought redress in the federal courts and claimed that such a fee for appealling an order premanently terminating parental rights violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court agreed.

Court's Analysis.  The Court recognized that this case presented an "age-old problem" of ensuring equal justice to all regardless of wealth through access to the courts.  In the criminal context, it has been unconstitutional to deny defendants certain types of appeals because they could not afford court costs related to filing such appeals.

Further, the Supreme Court has recognized a narrow category of civil cases where the State must provide access to its judicial processes without regard to a party's ability to pay court fees.  For example, in divorce cases, the inability to pay the filing fee should not prevent a couple from divorcing.  Still, the constitutional requirement to waive court fees is the exception in civil cases, not the general rule.

Those cases which are the exception usually are those involving state controls or intrusions on family relationships.  Appeals of terminating parental rights is one such exception.  The stakes are high for one losing parental rights - must more substantial than the mere loss of money by the State.  Besides, the number of such appeals is not that great to protect the State's monetary interests.

The Court was not enticed to draw a line between access in civil and criminal cases.  Permanent loss of parental rights is too great and carries such a stigma that one should not be denied access to the courts and for relief because of the lack of financial resources.  It is contrary to both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.  Court costs in all civil cases should not be waived because of poverty (and attorney costs are still the responsibility of the individual) but should be in such personal family matters.  Therefore, the Mississippi law fails constitutional scrutiny.