Whether using pseudonyms for parents and children —in cases involving children, especially with sensitive information —is appropriate and outweighs the presumption of public right of access, as held by the Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, or is possible and must be considered and weighed fully, including denial's adverse effect on meritorious claims (e.g. silencing, or degrading pro se cases, even on further review) beyond general anonymity disapproval, as the Fourth Circuit held, and be applies to adult children's sensitive childhood information, as the Fifth Circuit has retroactively allowed; or whether such information and children must be disclosed, as held by districts in the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, despite intra-circuit protections for children and parents with pseudonyms.

Whether children have the right to be represented by their pro se non-attorney parent(s) in their claims, and reciprocally, whether those parent(s) have the right to represent their children's claims, along with their own and intertwined claims without counsel —as permitted by the Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits for certain claims (e.g., SSI) — or whether such representation is barred, as held by the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. If they cannot secure counsel, whether courts should, per Rule 17(c), actively recruit or appoint attorneys —since children's claims requiring adjudication mandate trained legal assistance to fully protect their rights, as held by the Second Circuit —or whether claims and cases may be routinely dismissed in other circuits while ignoring Rule 17(c), without first recruiting counsel. Whether the proper procedure for parents appearing is as next friends or otherwise; and whether courts (federal or state) can appoint a Guardian ad Litem without assessing parental fitness, thereby intruding between parent and child and potentially undermining the fundamental rights both parties hold and protections parent(s) provide(s). Whether there is any right to an attorney where the court has constructed rules, precedents, or practices precluding pro se meaningful access to the courts unless represented, such as in class actions, representing one's child regarding fundamental and civil rights, or on appeal.

Whether children can pursue §1983 claims seeking redress for the wrongful, unwarranted state interference with their relationships with their parents —either absent state action against the children themselves, or not—as they have a right to family integrity under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process, which was violated and hence pleads a valid due process claim under section §1983, as the Ninth Circuit has held; or as the Sixth Circuit will not, unless a deliberate act with a culpable state of mind directed at the plaintiffs family relationship or a decision traditionally within the ambit of the family (evident in this case). And conversely, whether a parent can pursue such claims for loss of companionship with their children, where circuits have recognized §1983 claims under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to companionship with one's children —as the Ninth and Tenth Circuits will, even for adult children; as the First and Seventh Circuits will but with added limits, particularly for adult children, to governmental action directly aimed at the parent-child relationship; as the D.C. Circuit will for minors regardless of custody standing; as

Whether using pseudonyms for parents and children in sensitive cases is appropriate and outweighs the presumption of public access, and whether children have the right to be represented by pro se non-attorney parents in their claims