Iowa: State Department Ordered to Cover Court-Appointed Counsel’s Expenses in Privately Prosecuted State Action

The Iowa Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court’s order for the Iowa Department of Management (IDM) to pay, as a public expense, the fees incurred by appointed counsel for an indigent parent in a privately prosecuted termination-of-parental-rights action. IDM – which had not been a party to the juvenile court proceeding that determined IDM was responsible for compensating the appointed attorney – and the State Public Defender (“Public Defender”) appealed the juvenile court’s order to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, treating the appeal as a properly filed petition for a writ of certiorari, granted the writ as to IDM but denied it for the Public Defender, and affirmed the juvenile court’s order and annulled the writ on January 24, 2012.

The juvenile court appointed counsel to an indigent mother in a termination-of-parental-rights action filed by the child’s stepmother and father under Iowa Code Chapter 600A. In considering the mother’s request for counsel, the juvenile court had determined that under section 600A.6A(2), the mother did not qualify for the statutorily mandated right to counsel at public expense because she did not meet the criterion that the indigent parent “would have difficulty in presenting” facts and evidence or in examining witnesses.

However, the juvenile court found that the mother was constitutionally entitled to counsel at the public’s expense under In re S.A.J.B., 679 N.W. 2d 645 (Iowa 2004), an Iowa Supreme Court case. The juvenile court appointed Edward Crowell to represent the mother. The juvenile court eventually ordered the Public Defender to pay the attorney’s fees. Crowell consequently submitted a fee of $2,040, but the Public Defender refused to pay the fee, claiming that payment from the indigent defense fund applied only to counsel appointed under section 600A.6A, not under In re S.A.J.B.

Crowell then sought review by the juvenile court. The juvenile court reaffirmed its appointment of counsel In re S.A.J.B but effectively agreed with the Public Defender as to payment. The juvenile court alternatively determined that the fee should be paid by IDM pursuant to section 25.1 of the Iowa Code. IDM and the Public Defender subsequently appealed.

The Supreme Court, treating the appeal as a petition for certiorari, first considered whether IDM and the Public Defender had legal standing to appeal as IDM was not a party to the underlying litigation and the Public Defender was not affected by the juvenile court’s final order. Despite the Supreme Court’s encouragement for a nonparty to give a lower court an opportunity to reconsider a ruling against the nonparty, IDM was not required to do so, particularly since IDM’s issues had been decided before the juvenile court. The Supreme Court held that IDM had standing to appeal because it had been directly held liable for attorney’s fees. Conversely, the Public Defender did not have standing as the Public Defender showed no injury due to the juvenile court’s order.

The Supreme Court next turned to IDM’s and Crowell’s arguments. IDM argued that the juvenile court did not have the authority to order IDM to pay attorney’s fees since the lower court determined that the mother was not entitled to counsel under Iowa Code section 600A.6A (2). IDM also argued that In re S.A.J.B. did not constitutionally require the appointment of counsel for the mother and that In re S.A.J.B. was erroneously decided, with IDM wishing the Supreme Court to reverse it’s holding in In re S.A.J.B.

Crowell alternately argued that the right to counsel under section 600A.6A (2) was an independent provision for appointing counsel with the Public Defender covering the cost. Crowell additionally argued that if section 600A.6A (2) did limit the right to appointed counsel at public expense, it conflicted with the constitutional holding in In re S.A.J.B.

In In re S.A.J.B., the Supreme Court considered whether to extend the right to court-appointed counsel at the public’s expense to indigents in a privately prosecuted termination-of-parental-rights action pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 600A, as indigents had a right to counsel in a state prosecuted termination action pursuant to Chapter 232. The Supreme Court held that the same liberty interest was at stake in either action and under the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution, indigents, pursuant to chapter 600A, were as constitutionally entitled to counsel at the public’s expense as indigents pursuant to chapter 232, despite any pecuniary interests of the state.

The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that section 600A.6A (2) specifically limited the appointment of counsel at the public’s expense and was not independent of section 600A.6A(1). The Supreme Court also reaffirmed its holdings in In re S.A.J.B. and held that the juvenile court had properly determined that the mother was constitutionally entitled to counsel and that IDM was liable for the fees.

The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the juvenile court’s order for IDM to pay Crowell’s attorney fees. See: Crowell v. State Pub. Defender, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 8 (Iowa Jan. 24, 2014).

A petition for rehearing was later filed with the Iowa Supreme Court and denied. The opinion, though, was amended and substituted with a new opinion on February 12, 2014. The new opinion also affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment. See: Crowell v. State Pub. Defender, 845 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2014).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case