— I respectfully dissent. The majority has, without benefit of any decisional precedent or statutory support, substantially *35expanded the definition of due process to require appointment of counsel to represent defendants in paternity proceedings brought by the state. This action is directly contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s recent expression on the matter of appointed counsel in Scott v. Illinois (1979) 440 U.S. 367 [59 L.Ed.2d 383, 99 S.Ct. 1158], In Scott, the defendant, an indigent, was convicted of shoplifting and fined $50 after a bench trial at which he was not represented by counsel. The statute under which he was convicted provided for a maximum penalty of a $500 fine, one year in jail, or both. The high court held that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require a state trial court to appoint counsel for a criminal defendant who is charged with a statutory offense for which imprisonment upon conviction is authorized but not imposed.
The court emphasized “that Argersinger [v. Hamlin (1972) 407 U.S. 25 (32 L.Ed.2d 530, 92 S.Ct. 2006)] did indeed delimit the constitutional right to appointed counsel in state criminal proceedings. Even were the matter res nova, we believe that the central premise of Argersinger — that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonment — is eminently sound and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel.” (Italics added, p. 373 [59 L.Ed.2d at p.389].) The reasoning of this opinion is compelling and neither the California Constitution (art. I, § 14) nor any interest peculiar to this state indicates that this court should reach any contrary conclusion.
In the two cases consolidated before us, the County of Ventura paid welfare monies for the support of children born out of wedlock. In order to recover these monies and to avoid indefinitely continuing future support payments for the children, the county instituted these proceedings to establish the paternity of the children and to impose on defendants, if they are determined to be the fathers, the obligation to support their children and to reimburse the county for support payments already made. In light of both the objective and nature of such a proceeding, the right to free counsel is not constitutionally mandated.
There are only two types of proceedings in which either the United States Supreme Court or the California courts and Legislature have required appointment of counsel for indigent defendants on due process grounds. The first class of cases is that which may result in a deprivation *36of liberty, and the second is that in which the state seeks to remove a child from the custody of its parent. Both situations are clearly distinguishable in their nature from the present one and I shall discuss each in turn.
Where a legal proceeding may result in an infringement of a defendant’s personal liberty, there is clearly a right to counsel, regardless of whether the action is labeled civil or criminal. A paternity proceeding is obviously a civil suit which cannot result in the deprivation of the defendant’s liberty. The only possible consequence of such an action is the imposition of a financial obligation. While the majority focuses on the collateral possibility that a defendant might be jailed for his refusal to pay a support order arising from a paternity suit, such a criminal prosecution, at which the indigent defendant would be entitled to appointed counsel, is a totally separate proceeding and not an inevitable sequel to the paternity action itself. Persons under the obligation of a child support order who are truly indigent are rarely jailed. Criminal prosecutions which may result in confinement, like contempt proceedings in civil nonsupport cases, are usually reserved for cases of wilful noncompliance with a court order or wilful failure to support, by those having the ability to do so. (Nutter v. Superior Court (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 72, 75 [6 Cal.Rptr. 404]; Pen. Code, § 270.)
While a judgment in a paternity proceeding is admissible in a nonsupport prosecution, it is not conclusive on the issue of paternity nor does it relieve the prosecution of proving guilt of the nonsupport charge beyond a reasonable doubt. (Patterson v. Municipal Court (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 289, 299 [42 Cal.Rptr. 769].) Similarly, although the defendant in a paternity suit, as in any other civil action, might make statements which could be used against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution, the criminal proceeding is tangential to the paternity action and such collateral consequences do not require the appointment of counsel in the paternity proceeding. (Borror v. Department of Investment, (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 531 at pp. 539-541 [92 Cal.Rptr. 525]; In re Groban (1957) 352 U.S. 330 [1 L.Ed.2d 376, 77 S.Ct. 510].)
In Ford v. Herndon (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 492 [133 Cal.Rptr. 111], the Court of Appeal in discussing the precise question before us concluded as follows: “. . . it must be acknowledged that indigency alone does not require the state to provide free counsel in all legal proceedings. [11] The absolute due process requirement is that no person be imprisoned for an offense unless he is represented by counsel at trial. (Argersinger v. Hamlin *37(1972) 407 U.S. 25, 37 ... ; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) Unlike the absolute right to counsel mandated by specific provisions of both federal and state Constitutions for individuals accused of criminal offenses, the right to counsel in other than criminal proceedings is conditioned and determined on a case by case basis. (In re Love (1974) 11 Cal.3d 179, 189 . . . .)” (Pp. 498-499; see also State v. Walker (1976) 87 Wn.2d 443 [553 P.2d 1093], [The purposes of a paternity action are twofold: (1) The establishment of paternity; and (2) the imposition of a support obligation if the defendant is found to be the father of the child. The deprivation or restriction of defendant’s liberty is never a direct result of a filiation proceeding.])
By reason of the very nature of the two proceedings and the differential consequences to a defendant as a result thereof, the due process protections afforded at public expense to criminal defendants, who may lose their liberty, have been held not to apply to ordinary civil litigants whose primary interest in the outcome of a suit is financial. Thus, “[t]he ordinary civil litigant is not entitled to free transcripts on appeal at public expense.” (Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104, 107 [116 Cal.Rptr. 386].) An indigent debtor has no constitutional right to the waiver of bankruptcy filing fees. (United States v. Kras (1973) 409 U.S. 434 [34 L.Ed.2d 626, 93 S.Ct. 631].) Recipients of social welfare benefits are not entitled to the waiver of filing fees for appellate review of a disputed decrease in welfare benefits. (Ortwein v. Schwab (1973) 410 U.S. 656 [35 L.Ed.2d 572, 93 S.Ct. 1172].) It is abundantly clear that the weight of authority is against extension of the due process rights of criminal defendants and other litigants threatened with the loss of liberty or an important family interest to ordinaiy civil litigants who, like these defendants, have only a monetary interest in the outcome of the litigation.
As one faced with a possible monetary loss, the defendant in a paternity action is a kinsman to all other defendants in civil suits who may become judgment debtors. The majority supports its position by noting that the defendants here were “opposed by the full resources of the state.” {Ante, p. 30.) It is an undeniable fact of life that in many civil suits the parties are unequally matched in terms of legal representation even though there may be potentially serious legal consequences and the defendant’s reputation may suffer as the result of an adverse judgment. We need not, and cannot, by judicially rearranging financial burdens seek to equalize all such legal conflicts by fastening a new fiscal obligation on the public taxpayer.
*38In Ross v. Moffitt (1974) 417 U.S. 600 [41 L.Ed.2d 341, 94 S.Ct. 2437], the Supreme Court, discussing the right of criminal defendants to counsel in seeking discretionary appeals, stated that “[T]he fact that a particular service might be of benefit . . . does not mean that the service is constitutionally required.” (P. 616 [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 354].) California has no duty to “duplicate the legal arsenal that may be privately retained” by a defendant. It must only “assure the indigent defendant an adequate opportunity to present his claims fairly . . . .” (Ibid. [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 354].)
The majority contends, however, that a distinction must be made when the state is the plaintiff in the suit. I disagree. There are numerous situations, as with a contract dispute or defense of a tort claim, in which a party finds himself arrayed against the state. To follow the majority’s reasoning free counsel would have to be provided the civil litigant in all these cases as well, in order to restore some imaginary sense of litigation balance.
The majority relies on two cases for the general proposition that a defendant has the right “to appointed counsel under certain circumstances, regardless of whether the action is labelled criminal or civil.” Both cases involve proceedings culminating in deprivation of liberty and are thus readily distinguishable from the present case.
In Specht v. Patterson (1967) 386 U.S. 605 [18 L.Ed.2d 326, 87 S.Ct. 1209], the defendant was convicted of the crime of indecent liberties under a Colorado statute which provided a maximum sentence of 10 years but was sentenced under the Sex Offenders Act for an indeterminate term of from 1 day to life imprisonment. The requisite procedure, a complete psychiatric examination and a report thereof given to the trial judge before sentencing, was complied with in the defendant’s case, but no hearing was held. The Supreme Court held that the invocation of the act, which entailed the making of a new charge leading to criminal punishment, requires, under the due process clause, that petitioner should be present with counsel and have available the other rights attendant on any criminal hearing. The court specifically determined that “The punishment under the second Act is criminal punishment . . . .” (P. 608 [18 L.Ed.2d at p. 329], italics added.)
Similarly, in In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1 [18 L.Ed.2d 527, 87 S.Ct. 1428], the United States Supreme Court saw the similarity to the aims and objectives of criminal law enforcement when it upheld the right to *39counsel in a juvenile court proceeding which could result, upon a determination of delinquency, in a commitment to an institution in which the juvenile’s freedom is curtailed. No possible limitation of freedom is present in the paternity hearing and thus the principles espoused in Gault are manifestly not applicable.
Other cases cited for the general proposition that “due process has been held to include the right of an indigent defendant to appointed counsel in certain civil proceedings” are similarly inapposite. In Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge (1976) 397 Mich. 54 [243 N.W.2d 248], the state statute dealing with paternity action provided that a warrant could issue upon the filing of such a suit. The defendant in that case was in fact arrested. Upon arraignment the defendant’s failure to make the required recognizance or cash deposit could result in his commitment to county jail. Thus, again, in that case incarceration was possible. Under California statutes such an arrest in a paternity action is not possible.
The majority cites only one case dealing directly with the matter of paternity suits which even arguably supports its position, namely, Reynolds v. Kimmons (Alaska 1977) 569 P.2d 799, in which the Supreme Court of Alaska, by a two-to-one vote, held that due process requires appointment of counsel for an indigent defendant in a paternity suit in which the mother was represented by the state. Nothing in the facts of that case, however, indicate whether the state had expended welfare monies to support the child or had any obligation to do so. In the Reynolds case, therefore, it is unclear whether the state had any pecuniary interest of its own to protect.
By way of contrast, the purely economic interests of California in prosecuting paternity actions is underscored by the fact that in the case of a mother who has received welfare benefits, such parent is not even a necessary party and the action may be brought in the state’s own name as an assignee of the parent’s rights. (42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(26); Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 11350.1, 11476.) While I note that there is provision in the California statutory scheme for the involvement of the state in a paternity action even when the state has made no payment of funds, such a case is not before us now and we need not determine at this juncture how the right to counsel issue would be resolved in such a suit when California has no financial stake in the result.
While access to the courts is constitutionally protected, this access need not be guaranteed in the form of free counsel. In Payne v. Superior Court *40(1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 914 [132 Cal.Rptr. 405, 553 P.2d 565], cited by the majority, we held that the unqualified deprivation of a prisoner’s access to the courts to protect his property rights constituted a violation of his rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of both the federal and state Constitutions and we left it to the individual courts to determine how such access would be guaranteed. We cautioned “. . . we emphasize the limits of our holding. We have not ruled that all indigents have a right to counsel in civil cases.” (P. 926.) In Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S. 371 [28 L.Ed.2d 113, 91 S.Ct. 780], also cited by the majority the issue again was strictly one of access. The Supreme Court there concluded that due process prohibited a state from denying court access to individuals seeking dissolution of their marriages simply because they were unable to pay court fees. Access to these persons could be provided by allowing waiver of the requisite fees.
Appellants here do not allege that they were denied access to the courts. They were personally served and thus properly notified of the proceedings. There is no indication that their lack of personal funds deprived them of an opportunity to defend themselves. Both were offered and received assistance in learning how to present their cases in proprio persona. Both were apparently physically able to come to court although neither chose to do so. Even though appellant Cortez is apparently unable to speak English, the court appointed an interpreter for him and he was evidently able to communicate sufficiently with the legal aid society in Spanish for them to prepare a declaration in English for him to sign.
The record does not disclose whether appellants attempted to find counsel on a pro bona basis. It is regrettable that the legal aid society was unable to represent them, and if, as contended by the legal aid society, proceedings of these types involve “basic, fundamental rights” the society may wish to reconsider its priorities in determining which cases to accept.
Our courts and Legislature have also provided for appointment of counsel in proceedings in which the state seeks to deprive a parent of the custody of a child. In In re Jacqueline H. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 170 [145 Cal.Rptr. 548, 577 P.2d 683], we held that an indigent person is entitled to appointed counsel when appealing from a judgment following a hearing for permanent termination of her parental rights and to remove her child from her custody. From this fact the majority argues that because a paternity proceeding also involves the parent-child relationship the *41defendant, like the mother in Jacqueline H., must be provided counsel. I am unpersuaded.
First, the majority, fails to acknowledge that the Legislature has specifically provided statutorily for the appointment of counsel at the hearing aimed at removing custody from a parent. (Civ. Code, § 237.5; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 634.) It follows that appointment of counsel on appeal from a judgment after such a hearing is merely a logical concomitant of that legislatively created right. No such legislation affects the matter before us.
Second, the essential difference is patent between proceedings to terminate natural parental relationships and actions to establish paternity. Cases such as Jacqueline H. concern an existing familial relationship which the adult wishes to continue. All paternity proceedings, by definition, involve the denial of the parental relationship and the opposition to the establishment of such a relationship. “Basic, fundamental rights” are clearly involved in the former; only economic interests are involved in the latter. Surely only the most cynical logician could conclude that the same due process rights attendant on the claim of custody attach as well to the denial of paternity, and that the state’s obligation is no greater in the former than in the latter. It is fair to ask — what familial interest is being served by furnishing free counsel to a defendant who is fighting against the establishment of a paternal relationship? The majority has inverted the affected interests.
It seems self-evident that the central issue in paternity suits is neither the establishment or maintenance of the family unit nor the parent’s bond with the child. What is at stake is money. The state wishes to place the financial responsibility for support of the child on a legally responsible adult. It is only this financial obligation that can be imposed. The state cannot, despite the majority’s allusion to “moral” obligations, order a man to act as a father; it can only designate him as such. I am unable to accept the majority’s belief that if an indigent is provided with counsel and adjudged to be the father of a child after a fair hearing based on scientific evidence, he is more likely to fulfill his support obligations. {Ante, p. 33.) Such undocumented speculation is readily dispelled by the . tatistics in its own footnote 9 {ante, p. 32) which very strongly indicates that divorced fathers, who presumably are not contesting the paternity of their children, are less than cooperative in their compliance with support orders. In the context of a resisting father the usual paramount motivation is the financial implication not the imposition of an unwanted *42personal relationship which the court lacks power to monitor in any event.
Nevertheless, whatever one’s belief concerning the consequences of these judgments to these appellants, the solution does not lie in creating by judicial fiat a constitutional right to appointed counsel in paternity proceedings. It is my view that the financial implications of such a decision may very well be tremendous and beyond our capacity to determine. If the civil litigant is now to be furnished free counsel, what of the expenses of extensive discovery, and can the cost of the retention of an expert witness be far behind? The majority is strangely silent on the critical question — who is going to pay for counsel? Is it to be, as in Payne, a pro bond responsibility of the bar? Is it the Legislature which must appropriate for it from public funds? Once again, it is the Legislature which should determine by what means and to what extent the public should provide free legal services in civil matters. Thus far the Legislature has made no provision for such appointments in the Uniform Parentage Act (Civ. Code, § 7000 et seq.). Indeed, when originally introduced as Senate Bill No. 347 in the 1975-1976 Legislature, the act contained a proposed section 7019 which would have expressly required that the court appoint counsel for a party financially unable to employ counsel. This provision was expressly deleted, and that fact should tell us something.
What the majority expresses today is not constitutional interpretation; rather, it is the majority’s personal subjective judgment of “fundamental fairness.” It bears repeated expression that due process requirements neither necessitate nor allow such an expansion of the obligation of the state on such nonconstitutional standards as personal views of fairness. It is the people themselves and the Legislature which represents them and not the courts which are constitutionally vested with the power to amend and expand the Constitution. Tempted frequently as they may be, courts should not usurp that power in order to rearrange in accordance with their own views, the financial relationship in a civil case between the public entity and an indigent defendant.
I would affirm the judgments.
Clark, J., and Manuel, 1, concurred.
Respondents’ petition for a rehearing was denied May 16, 1979. Clark, L, Richardson, J., and Manuel, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.