Debtors' prison was common in the English-speaking world during the colonial period, but was supposedly phased out along with slavery. Slavery is indeed gone, but debtors' prison is back with a vengeance in the form of sending fathers to jail over small child support disputes.

This type of incarceration is based on "civil contempt," whereby someone can be sent directly to jail by a judge without the safeguards given to criminal defendants. Civil contempt can exist whenever someone disobeys a judge's order, as in failing to comply with an order to pay child support.

Michael D. Turner was allegedly behind by $5,728.76 in paying child support. He was struggling and had broken his back working, entitling him to disability and Social Security Income (SSI). He said to the judge, "I just hope that you give me a chance."

But the judge ordered Turner to jail for 12 months. When Turner asked the judge why he was not allowed to receive good-time or work credits, the judge replied, "Because that's my ruling."

The law in South Carolina, where this occurred, is that a father cannot be sent to jail for civil contempt for non-payment of child support if he is unable to make the payments. But Turner received a one-year jail sentence without any showing about whether he could even pay the amount outstanding. Indeed, it appears he could not.

Had Turner been represented by an attorney, this objection to the judge's order would likely have been made. But Turner could not afford an attorney. With some pro bono legal assistance, his case went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether the State should have appointed and hired an attorney for him, as required for most criminal defendants.

The Supreme Court was not willing to create a new constitutional right to counsel for the millions of child-support cases. Turner v. Rogers, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4566 (June 20, 2011). But 5 Justices -- the liberal bloc plus Justice Kennedy -- held that a defendant in child support disputes is entitled to the "benefit of alternative procedures." The alternative procedures require, if someone lacks an attorney, that the father at least receive notice that his "ability to pay" is the key issue in these contempt proceedings.

Turner did not receive this notice and the court had not made any finding about his ability to pay. The Supreme Court thus overturned his prison sentence. Too late for Turner, however, because he had already been forced to serve his prison sentence before the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

To win this victory, Turner overcame enormous odds and had to pursue his appeals while in jail. By the time the Supreme Court looked at his case, it was being asked to dismiss it for mootness due to how Turner had already completed his sentence. But the Court found that this issue was not moot because it was likely to recur and it transpires so quickly that it would otherwise evade appellate review.

Turner ultimately won on arguments that were raised for him by an amicus brief filed by the United States.