Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
Ohio Case Law

Lucas Cty. Children’s Servs. v. Kujawski, 2025-Ohio-5605

Case Information

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio Sixth Appellate District Lucas County
Date: 2025-12-16
Citation: 2025-Ohio-5605
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a pro se complaint filed by the appellant against Lucas County Children’s Services, holding that the appellant, a non-attorney, could not represent her children’s legal claims and failed to allege a valid personal injury claim.

Key Holdings

  • A pro se litigant may not represent the legal claims of their minor children unless licensed to practice law
  • A trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
  • A complaint must allege a personal injury to state a valid negligence claim
  • Claims framed as personal must include specific factual allegations of harm directly suffered by the claimant
  • Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is proper when no set of facts supports a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief

More Information

The appellant filed a complaint against Lucas County Children’s Services (LCCS) and several individual defendants alleging negligence and constitutional violations arising from the alleged molestation of her minor children during supervised visits. She claimed the agency failed to follow policy and protect the children, resulting in harm. She also sought damages for emotional trauma she allegedly experienced due to the same events.

Procedurally, the trial court dismissed the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), finding the appellant, as a non-attorney, could not bring claims on behalf of her children and failed to allege any specific injury to herself. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing and by mischaracterizing her as asserting only her children’s claims.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal. It held that no evidentiary hearing is required on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, which is limited to the four corners of the complaint. The court also found that the complaint did not allege any personal injury to the appellant sufficient to sustain her claims. Instead, all factual allegations pertained to harm suffered by her children, rendering her claims derivative and thus barred without legal representation.

This decision reiterates that parents cannot represent their children in court without being licensed attorneys and that courts are limited to the pleadings when reviewing motions to dismiss. The ruling emphasizes the necessity for plaintiffs to clearly state a personal, legally cognizable injury to survive a motion to dismiss.