Pair of federal courts weighs access to representation for children, people with disabilities

In Stone on behalf of C.S., 2025 WL 2959790 (N.D.N.Y. 2025), a NY federal district court considered a situation where a parent filed a lawsuit on behalf of their minor child relating to school activities.  The court first highlighted that parents cannot represent their own children pro se, and that a court must sua sponte raise this issue even if a party does not, but FRCP Rule 17(c)(2), provides that “The court must appoint a guardian ad litem–or issue another appropriate order–to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.”  However, the court cited prior caselaw for the proposition that a court “may properly decline to appoint counsel for a minor when it is clear that no substantial claim might be brought on behalf of such a party.”  After noting that the instant case did not involve a constitutionally protected interest, the court pointed out that the statute of limitations was tolled until the child reached the age of majority, and therefore declined to appoint a GAL while also dismissing the case.

Then, in Duan v. MX Pan, 2025 WL 2958420 (S.D. Ind. 2025), an Indiana federal district court weighed a situation where a pro se defendant had suffered a stroke and demonstrated clear signs of mental impairment afterwards, and the court considered its obligations under FRCP Rule 17(c)(2).  It observed there had not yet been a determination of incompetency, then determined the defendant was incompetent for purposes of defending himself in the lawsuit.  It stated “Appointment of a guardian ad litem is not always the best course of action ‘because a non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself, if a guardian ad litem is not a lawyer, he or she must be represented in turn by counsel’ … Many courts have held that ‘[t]he appointment of counsel may serve as [an] alternative to the appointment of a guardian ad litem.’”  It then concluded appointment of counsel was appropriate in the instant case because the defendant was a non-English speaker and that “while Mr. Ping suffered a serious medical event and the effects of it have rendered him incompetent to represent himself in this action, he has improved from hearing to hearing and the undersigned believes that the appointment of an attorney will adequately represent his interests and ‘protect’ him during this civil action against him.”