N.V.

BACKGROUND

The factual basis of the trial court’s order is immaterial to this appeal. It suffices to say that N.V.’s father filed a request for the civil harassment restraining order on her behalf in October 2023, when she was 17 years old. In a signed statement that supported the request, N.V. explained that C.C.’s behavior toward her made her afraid to go to school. By the time an evidentiary hearing on N.V.’s allegations occurred in March 2024, both N.V. and C.C. had apparently turned 18. N.V.’s father questioned and cross- examined C.C. and other witnesses at the hearing. In a written ruling, the trial court found N.V. had established that C.C.’s in-school conduct warranted issuance of a two- year civil harassment restraining order that, among other things, prohibited C.C. from contacting N.V. in any way. The restraining order expires in March 2026. C.C. filed a timely appeal and the matter became fully briefed in October 2025.

DISCUSSION

Practice of Law By a Layperson C.C. argues his due process right to a fair trial was violated when N.V.’s father practiced law without a license in the trial court. N.V. argues that because the prohibition on the unlicensed practice of law…