Abstract
Paternity defendants in state prosecuted actions should be entitled to counsel, not on a case-by-case basis, but on the basis of their membership in a class of defendants entitled to that right. In adopting the case-by-case approach, the Nordgren and Lassiter courts have embraced a mode of analysis previously abandoned by the United States Supreme Court in other right-to-counsel cases. When paternity cases are analyzed in light of the Court's usual approach to due process problems, it becomes clear that paternity defendants must be granted counsel to minimize the substantial risk of erroneous results and the correspondingly serious financial and social damage those determinations could inflict. The state's interest in economical proceedings is hardly commensurate with the interest in correct results that the state shares with both the putative father and the child whose interests it seeks to protect. Surely, when the state itself seeks to impose such a fundamental relationship upon parties otherwise unable to defend themselves, appointed counsel should be provided.
Recommended Citation
Parker, Rodney R.
(1982)
"Nordgren v. Mitchell: Indigent Paternity
Defendants' Right to Counsel,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1982:
No.
4, Article 5.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1982/iss4/5