Supreme Court rules against rights to an attorney in divorce/custody case

In a case that could have had a huge financial impact, the state Supreme Court today rejected a Snohomish County woman's claim that she had a constitutional right to an attorney appointed at public expense in her divorce case.

The woman, Brenda L. King, lost primary custody of her two children to her ex-husband during a 2006 divorce trial in which he had a lawyer and she could not afford one. A Snohomish County judge denied King's request for a new trial, and she appealed on the grounds that the state Constitution guarantees a divorce lawyer for the indigent in the same way it does in criminal proceedings.

The 7-2 decision, written by Justice Charles W. Johnson, rejected King's argument, but it suggested the state Legislature should consider helping the poor with legal aid in divorces because "wise public policy" may require higher standards than "those minimally tolerable under the Constitution."

The case drew no less than eight amicus curiae briefs, most of them in support of granting indigent divorce lawyers, including the Northwest Women's Law Center and a group of retired state judges. The state Attorney General supported the argument by King's husband, Michael King.

A 1975 state Supreme Court ruling allows indigent parents who are at risk of losing their children to foster care to have lawyers at public expense. But the stakes in divorces are not as high, and fundament constitutional rights are not at jeopardized if one parent cannot afford a lawyer, according to the ruling.

In dissent, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the "stakes were huge" for Brenda King, a homemaker, and that she was overwhelmed by the skilled lawyer presenting her husband.

With 28,400 divorces filed each year in the state, the potentially cost was unclear but could have been substantial.