Represent Your Children's Best Interest, Go To Jail?
This entry was posted on 9/24/2006 6:23 PM and is filed under Constitutional Assault.
As the
SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The US) blog explains, the government is asking the Court to clarify whether parents can proceed in court pro se, i.e. without representation, when enforcing their children's rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Various Bar associations have argued that this represents the unauthorized practice of law.
If the parents are being accused of the unauthorized practice of law, however,
then the Bar associations must be assuming they are bringing the case on behalf of their
children.
Isn't it more accurate to state that the children are the party
proceeding in court pro se with their parents standing in as
guardians? After all, it is the children whose rights are at issue, not the parents. The parents are not representing the children as attorneys but rather as parents.
Also, the Supreme Court has in the past denied attorney parents attorney fees after successfully representing
their children, arguing that attorney
fee provisions are only for third party representation. If the attorney parent is not representing their children as an attorney when asking for fees, then the attorney parent is really only representing the child as a parent. So the non-attorney parent should not be penalized for proceeding in court to enforce their childrens rights either.
This is just a case of misguided industry self-protection. It assumes that everyone with rights to protect by use of the court system can afford third party representation. By criminalizing the act of self-representation, the Bar associations force an unsavory choice on the poor, forego rights afforded under the law, or break the law to protect their children.
Parents are not separate from their children who are the party. The family walks into court as a single unit pro se.