In re Dependency of S.K.-P.

Nine-year-old S.K.-P. was denied appointment of an attorney for her ongoing dependency proceeding in the Washington juvenile court system—a preceding that will directly impact her physical liberty interests by determining where and with whom she will live and attend school and what, if any, contact she will be allowed or required to have with family members.

S.K.-P. appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals. Baker & McKenzie LLP filed an amicus brief on behalf of Juvenile Law Center and other amici in support of S.K.-P.’s right to counsel. Amici argued that children’s physical liberty interests are always at stake in dependency proceedings and independent, client-directed, legal counsel is necessary to help guard against potential harm and protect children’s interests.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s ruling, holding that neither the Washington Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution compel appointment of counsel for children in dependency proceedings and that a case-by-case application of the Mathews factors is sufficient to protect children’s due process rights.

S.K.-P. appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. Baker & McKenzie, LLP filed an amicus brief on behalf of Juvenile Law Center and other amici, urging the court to grant review. Amici argued that a youth’s right to counsel in dependency proceedings is supported by national experts and the majority of states, many of which have demonstrated that counsel is not only necessary but can be provided in a feasible and cost-effective manner.

The Washington Supreme Court held that Washington’s discretionary standard for appointment of counsel “provides children with sufficient due process protection, provided that juvenile courts apply the Mathews factors on the record at an early practicable time and without a presumption against appointment of counsel.”