A Mother's Complaint

"Something always seemed off and not quite right with the way my children's grades and GPA were displayed .... [M]y children [were] overlooked for school awards, academic scholarships and grant opportunities that they otherwise would have been eligible for, the opportunity to be valedictorian, salutatorian ...."

From Doe v. Edoff, decided Mar. 6 by Judge Sean Cox (E.D. Mich.):

Plaintiff's [pro se] complaint names more than forty individuals as Defendants and purports to assert federal claims against them. Aside from listing the names of the various Defendants, Plaintiff's complaint includes no factual allegations specific to the Defendants. Plaintiff states her claim in the following paragraph:

Something always seemed off and not quite right with the way my children's grades and GPA were displayed on Powerschool and in 2022 the fraud surfaced of multiple staff members employed with L'Anse Creuse Middle School North, L'Anse Creuse High School North and L'Anse Creuse Public School System; illegally manipulated the Powerschool and Schoology systems and illegally Falsifying Public School Records which resulted in my children being overlooked for school awards, academic scholarships and grant opportunities that they otherwise would have been eligible for, the opportunity to be valedictorian, salutatorian as well as kept them ineligible to have their California, New York and Illinois entertainment permits renewed from 2022 until the present.

The district court holds plaintiff can't proceed under a pseudonym, and that she needs to file an amended Complaint that identifies herself. The court also signals to the plaintiff that she might want to offer some more details when she files an amended complaint.

Comments

[SRG2]

I wouldn't be surprised ff she were pro se because she couldn't find a lawyer to take her case.

[Zarniwoop]

Perhaps "Karen Doe" would have been a better pseudonym

[tuphat]

"kept them ineligible to have their California, New York and Illinois entertainment permits renewed" ???

[Stupid Government Tricks]

IFFF that does mean anything, my guess is some kind of child actor permit, because otherwise they'd be too young to work for pay. And I bet such permits require proof of still going to school and getting decent grades.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In many states, for a child under age 16, the local School Superintendent (or designee) issues the permits.

Out-of-state ones is something that I am not familiar with. And I find it interesting that the suit does NOT allege problems with obtaining a Michigan permit, the state the children actually live in. And that it mentions "reissue" -- that apparently the permits had been issued in 2022 (when there was still a lot of COVID money around, see article below).

Now remember that children are money -- that state aid monies are mostly on a per-student basis. Often it is your Oct 1st and April 1st headcount that matters.

There is an interesting line in the article cited below -- "We budgeted to lose about 150 students, but lost only around 70" -- losing even 2-3 students is a significant amount of money and hence the school wouldn't want to.

Now the district's $3M deficit has suddenly ballooned to a $9M deficit (see article below asking for a *criminal* investigation) and where there is smoke there tends to be fire. Not always, but my experience is that troubled school districts tend to be problematic.

And they definitely have a financial interest in denying her the permits -- if she takes the children to IL, NY, or CA, they won't be there for the headcount. Not sure if she homeschools them, but it is possible there too.

So with the caveat that there are a lot of crazy mothers whose children are neither as gifted nor as talented as they think they are, ummm....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/l-anse-creuse-schools-trustee-asks-county-prosecutor-to-review-9-million-budget-deficit/ar-AA1yRkQU

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two things:

1: As problematic as this filing is, I would not be surprised to find actual merit behind it. I know just how petty and vindictive most K-12 systems are, and that has been evidenced here and elsewhere by some of the jaw-dropping stunts they have attempted to pull.

No, that doesn't give this suit legitimacy -- it's just that I wouldn't be surprised if it were a legitimate legal issue.

2: As to being unable to find a lawyer to take her case, that does not itself mean the case is without merit. Access to legal representation in this country is not universal, and it is a problem which has gotten worse as law schools have skewed left over the past few decades.

Suits against schools (outside of discrimination or SPED) are incredibly difficult to find counsel for because there are very few lawyers who practice this kind of law, or even know much about education law.

2: Isn't she almost making a textbook disparate impact case here?

Replace her children with "Black students" and throw in some statistics as the number of Black students and how few of them (if any) got any awards -- isn't that what a typical disparate impact suit is based on?

Take, for example, Obama's asinine school suspension quota -- that K-12 schools must suspend students in a ratio equal to racial demographics in the school. (When I'm being obnoxious, I ask why this shouldn't also apply to sex -- why shouldn't the requirement also be that 60% of the students suspended from high school be female to match demographics as well.)

More Black (males) were being suspended because more Black (males) were doing things, much as Daniel Patrick Moynihan had predicted they would be -- way back in 1965, before their parents were born.

But NoBama said you can't suspend a student if he is Black, and that -- more than Covid -- is why K-12 is such a zoo right now. But I digress.

[Noscitur a sociis]

2: Isn't she almost making a textbook disparate impact case here?

No.

THBANEOSATSQ

[David Nieporent]

If I weren't a trademark lawyer — or a former one, anyway — I'd be looking to hire one.

[Drewski]

A Nuthur? Or am I misremembering your catch phrase?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The N is for nervewracking.

[ReaderY]

The court also said something else important. The plaintiff cannot assert her minor children’s claims because she is not an attorney.

While I would agree that she has to list the children involved as plaintiffs, the idea that a parent cannot appear in court on behalf of her minor children, parents have to have lawyers to assert their children’s claims, would seem to go against centuries of commin-law practice. Parents have long been able to sue and proceed in court on behalf of their minor children. I wouldn’t read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as eliminating that.

Indeed, it may arguably violate a parent’s constitutional right to direct the affairs of and represent their children to prohibit parents from acting on behalf of their children in court. And this is so even though hiring an attorney might be the best thing for the children involved in terms of their chances of winning a case.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It also raises two other questions -- (a) should the minor proceed pro se and/or (b) have the ability to sue upon majority?

The latter exists in medical malpractice and with some sexual abuse, but I have a problem with it, particularly in a case like this.

A Middle School student is 12 years old -- it means suing six years from now for a case that will go to trial in maybe eight. Some of the defendants are going to be dead by then -- the Superintendent has already retired. Are you going to claw back the estate of a dead person for a judgment? And it's like the Lucy Leadbetter case, how is the district going to defend itself against the alleged actions of the deceased?

Furthermore, don't children enjoy 5th and 14th Amendment due process rights? Isn't denying them process that would otherwise be due to them a due process violation?

[David Nieporent]

And it's like the Lucy Leadbetter

Why are you like this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"extending the term limit would put a strain on the chances of an adequate defense for the employers, as to defend themselves one "has to rely on documents and the memory of individuals, and neither of those is permanent. If a disappointed employee can wait for many years before raising a claim of discrimination ... he or she can wait out the employer, that is ensure that the employer effectively unable to offer any meaningful defense to the claim"

[Noscitur a sociis]

1.

the idea that a parent cannot appear in court on behalf of her minor children, parents have to have lawyers to assert their children’s claims, would seem to go against centuries of commin-law practice.

Do you have some support for this claim?

2. Pro se representation in federal court is governed by statute, not the common law.

3.

Indeed, it may arguably violate a parent’s constitutional right to direct the affairs of and represent their children to prohibit parents from acting on behalf of their children in court.

To the extent that the underlying issue violates the parent’s own rights, the parent can sue in their own name. To the extent you’re saying that parents have a constitutional right to select inferior representation for their children, that position seems well beyond anything any American court has ever held, and fairly unpersuasive:

The choice to appear pro se is not a true choice for minors who under state law, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b), cannot determine their own legal actions. There is thus no individual choice to proceed pro se for courts to respect, and the sole policy at stake concerns the exclusion of non-licensed persons to appear as attorneys on behalf of others.

It goes without saying that it is not in the interests of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys. Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected. There is nothing in the guardian-minor relationship that suggests that the minor's interests would be furthered by representation by the non-attorney guardian. Sole shareholders of corporations are not allowed to represent such corporations pro se, see National Independent Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distribution Co., 748 F.2d 602, 609-10 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied sub nom. Patterson v. Buena Vista Distribution Co., 471 U.S. 1056, 85 L. Ed. 2d 484, 105 S. Ct. 2120 (1985), a circumstance in which the identity of the litigant and pro se attorney is closer than the present case. To allow guardians to bring pro se litigation also invites abuse, as the present case may demonstrate. In appropriate circumstances, of course, the district court may appoint counsel, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c), 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(d) (1988); see also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986).

Cheung v. Youth Orchestra, 906 F.2d 59, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1990).

[Davy C]

It goes without saying that it is not in the interests of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys.

A federal district judge makes $247,400 per year; they can afford to hire an attorney for their kids. But for many people, the choice is between subpar representation by a parent, and no representation at all. Trial lawyers are expensive. And often the cause of action will have reached the statute of limitations before the child would be able to bring their own action, or the case would be moot by then.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Bad representation is often worse than no representation. It’s also common, if not ubiquitous, to either toll a statute of limitations during minority or restart it on adulthood (Michigan does the latter) so it’s not like parental representation is the only vehicle where relief is possible.

[David Nieporent]

Bad representation is often worse than no representation.

Yeah. As a libertarian, I think people have every right to represent themselves. But as a lawyer, I know how much they're going to screw up their cases when they do. This isn't gatekeeping; I would advise against taking out your own appendix, too, and it's not to protect the income stream of surgeons.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, it may arguably violate a parent’s constitutional right to direct the affairs of and represent their children to prohibit parents from acting on behalf of their children in court.

In the sense that anything can be argued, I suppose. But it's a stupid argument. It no more violates that right than a rule that parents can't prescribe controlled substances to their children violates that right. Or the rule that parents must have state-issued driver's licenses if they want to drive their kids places does.

The right to make decisions on behalf of one's kids is not the right to act in ways that one is otherwise not allowed to act. The parental right would be the right to choose a lawyer to represent their kid, not the right to represent the kid themselves.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It's funny that one of the few comments to get more than a cursory sneer out of you is one that threatens lawyerly control of the courts. Heaven forbid that a mere peasant should try to look out for herself or her children!

[Noscitur a sociis]

The plaintiff’s ineptitude at “look[ing] out for herself” (which, to be clear, no one is disputing she is entitled to do) is a good illustration of why she shouldn’t be allowed to undermine whatever claims her children have in the same fashion.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It's an even better illustration of how much lawyers have fucked up the judicial system.

[santamonica811]

Stupid,
Is it possible for you to take a deep breath and look at the substance of what NaS is saying? At least to me; it's a logical point that is being made . . . EVEN IF one ends up disagreeing with it. (To me; you're coming across as dismissing it out-of-hand, without even considering what the other side is saying.) I get that this is the internet, and all that. But it's not like NaS is making an absolutely crazy argument, no? 🙂