Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-46735 v. Howard
| Decision Date | 23 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 12136,J--,12136 |
| Citation | 112 Ariz. 170,540 P.2d 642 |
| Parties | In the Matter of APPEAL IN PIMA COUNTY, JUVENILE ACTION NO.46735, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Lawrence HOWARD, Chief Judge, Division Two, of the Court of Appeals, and Elizabeth Urwin Fritz, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Louis L. Deckter, Tucson, for petitioner.
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, by John S. O'Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for respondents.
We accepted jurisdiction of this petition for special action to determine whether an order to an indigent natural parent to pay the filing fees and transcript preparation costs in her appeal from a juvenile court ruling that her children were dependent, violates her constitutional rights.
After a hearing, the juvenile court declared the petitioner's children dependent and transferred legal custody to the Department of Economic Security. A motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis was granted. Notice of appeal was filed.
The Clerk of the Court of Appeals then ordered the petitioner to pay the filing fees. The Court of Appeals ordered that the transcripts of the dependency hearings be prepared and forwarded, and further ordered that the cost of this preparation be paid by the petitioner. She filed a petition for special action with this court.
Insofar as a jurisdiction provides appellate review of criminal cases, that review must not be denied to some on account of their overty. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 Reh. denied, 351 U.S. 958, 76 S.Ct. 844, 100 L.Ed. 1480 (1956). Arizona has provided an appellate procedure in juvenile court cases. Rule 24, Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court.
This court has held that the Court of Appeals effectively denied a juvenile his right to appeal by denying him the right to proceed as an indigent. Maricopa County Juvenile No. 71257 v. Cook, 109 Ariz. 139, 506 P.2d 1033 (1973). In that case, we predicted future juvenile appeals in which the distinction between essentially criminal and essentially civil cases could not be clearly drawn. This is such a case.
The right to custody and control of one's children has long been recognized as a fundamental one. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). The individual's right not to be deprived of a fundamental constitutional grant without due process of law extends to temporary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 95853
...with in forma pauperis appeals, including transcripts, in parental status termination cases. See, e.g., In re Appeal in Pima County v. Howard, 112 Ariz. 170, 540 P.2d 642 (1975); Cal. Family Code Ann. § 7895(c) (West 1994); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 19-3-609 (Supp.1996); Nix v. Department of Human R......
-
Reist v. Bay County Circuit Judge
...cannot deny the petitioner her statutory right of appeal solely because of her indigency.' In the Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J--46735, 112 Ariz. 170, 540 P.2d 642, 643 (1975). The issues on appeal from an order terminating parental rights are generally both factual ......
-
Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561, Matter of, JD-561
...procedural aspects with the notion of due process embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action J-46735 v. Howard, 112 Ariz. 170, 540 P.2d 642 (1975); rule 16, Arizona Juvenile Court Rules of Procedure; U.S.Const. amend. XIV. See also Stanley v......
-
Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4963, Matter of, JS-5209
...S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Pima County Juv. Action J-46735, 112 Ariz. 170, 540 P.2d 642 (1975); Pima County Juv. Action S-111, 25 Ariz.App. 380, 543 P.2d 809 (1975). Statutes terminating parental rights must th......