By Michael Phillips, with contributions from Bruce Eden
When it comes to family court, the Constitution doesn’t get to take a day off. And yet, time and time again, we see courts sidestep binding precedent, ignore federal protections, and trample over the due process rights of poor and self-represented parents—especially when it comes to child support enforcement.
That’s exactly what’s at stake in the case of William Sewell, a South Carolina father who is facing threats of incarceration over unpaid child support and refusal to pay an extortionate $25,000 guardian ad litem/legal fee—despite being indigent, without counsel, and in no position to comply.
But there’s one major legal problem standing in the way of South Carolina continuing this charade: the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011).
And under Rule 201 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, William Sewell has the right to force the court to take judicial notice of that precedent—immediately.
What Turner v. Rogers Actually Says
In Turner, a South Carolina man was jailed for civil contempt after failing to pay child support. The issue before the Court was whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to provide appointed counsel to an indigent defendant facing incarceration in a civil contempt hearing.
The Supreme Court held that while appointed counsel is not automatically required, the state must implement “alternative procedures” to ensure a fair determination of whether the individual is actually able to comply with the court order. Those safeguards include:
- Notice that ability to pay is a critical issue
- A fair opportunity to present evidence
- The opportunity to question opposing witnesses
- An express finding by the court on ability to pay
However—and this is crucial—if the opposing party is represented by counsel, as is the case in William Sewell’s situation, then the balance of fairness shifts, and appointed counsel may in fact be constitutionally required to avoid violating due process.
Judicial Notice: What It Is, and Why It Matters Now
Under South Carolina Rule of Evidence 201, courts are required to take judicial notice of facts and legal decisions that are:
(1) Generally known within the jurisdiction, or
(2) Capable of accurate and ready determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Moreover:
(d) When Mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.
That means William Sewell can, and must, file a motion or raise the issue orally in court to demand that the judge take judicial notice of Turner v. Rogers. If the judge refuses, they are ignoring binding precedent and violating a clear procedural rule—and potentially subjecting themselves to disciplinary action or appealable error.
This Isn’t Just About Child Support. It’s About Liberty.
The Supreme Court recognized that civil contempt leading to incarceration implicates a fundamental liberty interest. As the Turner Court put it:
“Imprisoning a person for failing to obey a court order to pay child support, without first determining whether the person is able to comply, violates the Due Process Clause.”
In William Sewell’s case, not only has he raised inability to pay, but the court is demanding compliance with a $25,000 bill—an amount that would be extreme even for a well-off litigant, let alone an unemployed father without representation.
If the court proceeds without counsel or meaningful alternatives in place, it risks violating federal law and triggering a Section 1983 claim for deprivation of rights under color of law.
When a Judge Ignores the Law, the Judge Commits Contempt
As Bruce Eden points out, if a judge refuses to take judicial notice of Turner after being formally requested to do so, and proceeds with incarceration or judgment anyway, they may themselves be in criminal contempt of federal law.
That’s not hyperbole.
State judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. When they willfully ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent—especially one as directly applicable as Turner—they’re not just making a bad ruling. They’re acting outside the law entirely.
What William Sewell Must Do Right Now
- File a written request for judicial notice under Rule 201(d), citing Turner v. Rogers, and attach the ruling.
- State clearly and on the record that the opposing party has counsel while he does not.
- Assert indigency and inability to pay, and request a formal hearing on ability to pay prior to any contempt finding.
- Request appointment of counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment or, at minimum, procedural safeguards required by Turner.
- If denied, move for reconsideration and prepare for appeal or federal intervention.
This Isn’t Just William’s Fight. It’s a National One.
Turner v. Rogers was supposed to protect poor parents from being jailed without justice. But as we’ve seen time and time again, many family court judges still act as if it doesn’t exist. They rely on intimidation, coercion, and procedural ambushes to push parents—usually fathers—into impossible positions.
If South Carolina continues to ignore this ruling, then William Sewell’s case could be the one that blows the door open for judicial accountability.
He’s not just defending himself. He’s fighting for every parent who’s ever been told they have rights—but only if they can afford them.
Michael Phillips is a legal reform journalist who reports on family court injustice, civil rights violations, and due process failures across the U.S.
Bruce Eden is a national father’s rights advocate and legal strategist with extensive experience challenging unconstitutional family court practices.
The People's Law Review 