Legal Opinion · Dissent

In the Interest of Cooper

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 17, 1981No. 51,276Published

1DissentMcFarland, J.

The Court of Appeals decision in this case (5 Kan. App. 2d 584) unequivocally states:

“Where proceedings are brought for an adjudication that a child is deprived, due process requires that the parent or parents, if indigent, must have counsel appointed to represent them at a deprived child hearing.” Syl. ¶ 4.

The majority opinion of this court, in ostensibly reversing said opinion, holds:

“Constitutional due process requires the State to appoint counsel for an indigent parent in a deprived child hearing under K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 38-817 whenever the parent, unable to present his or her case…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Murray v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1979
  4. In the Interest of CooperCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API