Whether RCW 4.08.050 deprives a minor's constitutional right to counsel and effective representation as well as his right to access the courts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Courts “have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” Obsergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (Roberts, J., joined by Scalia and Thomas, dissenting).In interpreting a statue, the courts must defer to “the intent of the legislature,” “until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Ogden v. Sauders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827). Wash. Rev. Code. Ann. § 4.08.050 (“RCW 4.08.050”) is the statute at issue. RCW 4.08.050 mandates appointment of guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff, without time constraint or legal : consequence for minors if no appointment is requested. Here, through a judicially added deadline requirement which had been deliberately excluded ° by the Legislature, Washington courts imposed a dismissal with prejudice against a disabled minor, J.L. for the alleged untimely request for appointment of guardian ad litem by his pro se parent who speaks : English as her second language. The dismissal with prejudice against minors contravenes Washington courts’ own precedents, and the decades-long practice of courts nationwide that the appointment of the guardian ad litem was “ “mandatory” and the court's failure to make : appointment is a “reversible error’ and the erroneous judgment against him is “voidable at his ; option”; and that non-attorney representation is prohibited in both federal and state courts. See 28 U. S. C. § 1654; RCW 2.48.180; State v. Yishmael, 195 Wn.2d 155, 456 P.38d 1172 (2020). The judiciallytailored and result-driven “Smith loses” in the hypothetical pending case of Smith v. Jones had : ii ; deprived J.L.’s access to the Courts. Adopting Respondents 3 position that allowing legal : representation for J.L. violates RCW 4.08.050, the Washington Court of Appeals announced that the pro se parent could act on minor's behalf. It further denied the appearance of a licensed counsel, Mr. James Daugherty 2 on behalf of J.L, following the previous refusal to appoint legal counsel. 1. Whether the Washington courts erred concluding contrary to its own long-standing precedent and established laws nationwide that RCW 4.08.050 authorizes a pro se parent to act on her child’s behalf. Stated another way, the question is whether RCW 4.08.050 effectively deprives a minor's constitutional right to counsel and effective representation as well : as his right to access the courts. 2. Whether judicially added time constraint is a violation of separation of powers and an improper encroachment to the legislative power. 3. Whether the court has authority over unrepresented minor children who was not yet made party of the case through the mandatory guardian ad litem and legal counsel. 1 The lead appellate counsel for Respondents was a staff , attorney having been working with Washington state , Court of Appeals for over 15 years, and is currently the Commissioner of that Court, with the short-period leave ; from that court acting as Respondents’ counsel on this matter. 2 Attorney, Mr. Daugherty submitted a separate petition _ before this Court for minor, J.L. who was denied of the constitutional rights to counsel. Petitioner respectfully invites this Court to incorporate arguments in Mr. Daugherty’s petition. No. 20-1504. iii ; TABLES OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED.scc