In re B., 30 N.Y.2d 352 (1972)

An indigent parent facing the potential loss of a child’s society in a child neglect proceeding is entitled to be advised of the right to assigned counsel if they cannot afford an attorney.

Summary

This case addresses whether a Family Court is required to advise an indigent parent, charged with child neglect, of their right to assigned counsel. The Westchester County Commissioner of Social Services filed a neglect charge against the appellant, alleging she left her three-year-old daughter unattended. The Family Court advised the appellant she could retain counsel at her own expense but did not inform her of her right to assigned counsel if indigent. The appellant admitted the facts in the petition, and the child was placed in the petitioner’s custody. The New York Court of Appeals held that indigent parents are entitled to be advised of their right to assigned counsel in child neglect proceedings due to the fundamental interest at stake.

Facts

In June 1969, the Westchester County Commissioner of Social Services filed a child neglect charge against the appellant. The charge alleged that the appellant left her three-year-old daughter home alone between 1:00 AM and 4:00 AM on June 21. During that time, the child was allegedly kidnapped and raped by a friend of the appellant.

Procedural History

The Family Court adjudicated the child neglected and placed her in the petitioner’s custody after the appellant admitted to the allegations in the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s order. The appeal then reached the New York Court of Appeals as a matter of right based on constitutional grounds.

Issue(s)

Whether the Family Court is required to advise an indigent parent, charged with child neglect, that they are entitled to be represented by assigned counsel.

Holding

Yes, because an indigent parent, facing the loss of a child’s society, is entitled to the assistance of counsel and must be informed of that right; to deny legal assistance under such circumstances would constitute a violation of their due process rights.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that a parent’s concern for the liberty, care, and control of their child involves a fundamental interest. The court stated that this interest cannot be relinquished to the State without the opportunity for a hearing with assigned counsel if the parent cannot afford one. The court emphasized that once the right to assigned counsel exists, the individual must be informed of that right. The court highlighted the deficiency in the Family Court’s advice to the appellant, which stated, “you must obtain [an attorney] yourself, and pay for him out of your own funds,” excluding the possibility of assigned counsel. This statement, the Court reasoned, could not lead to a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel. The court adopted the reasoning of the Federal District Court in Cleaver v. Wilcox, emphasizing the inherent imbalance between the state as an adversary and an unrepresented indigent parent. The court remitted the proceeding to the Family Court for a rehearing, ensuring the appellant would be represented by counsel, while not reversing or vacating the initial order.