1, 68 L. Ed. 2d 627, 101 S. Ct. 2202 (1981), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute governing paternity actions that required the party requesting paternity tests to bear the costs of such tests. The Court held, on due process grounds, that given the interests at stake, the indigent putative father was entitled to a paternity test at state expense. Little, 452 U.S. at 9-12, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 634-36, 101 S. Ct. at 2207-09. The Court noted that “ ‘a cost requirement, valid on its face, may offend due process because it operates to foreclose a particular party’s opportunity to be heard.’ ” Little, 452 U.S. at 16, 68 L. Ed. 2d at 639, 101 S. Ct. at 2211, quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 380, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113, 120, 91 S. Ct. 780, 787 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Key in Little and Boddie were the “
holding the mvra prohibits the court from examining the defendants ability to pay restitution holding that  14 prohibits the awarding of costs against the state as a defendant recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs holding that due process prohibits a state from denying indigent parties access to its divorce court based on their inability to pay filing fees and costs holding that state may not imprison indigent defendant solely for inability to pay fine