I tried and you have to admit, not knowing they would provide translators (btw: who pays for the translator) and as such would not include not speaking English as a disability. I still believe a translator does not remove the disability. Think about this: what if you had somebody from New England on trial and you had somebody from Louisianna translating whatever language was being spoken in a court. While the language may get translated in to English, it is English influenced by the La influence and then trying to translate that to New England English. Hard to have complete communications but I'll accept it.
So, since the courts do recognize the consanguinity relationship as justification to allow such a person to represent another if there is a disability, would they allow #1 son to set at the defendents table and confer with mom and dad in an effort to assist them? Obviously not speaking for them but #1 son is going to understand the situation and be able to read inflections by the English that an interpreter may miss due to the unfamiliarity of the interpreter with the defendents?
Simply looking for a way for son to assist mom and dad without acting as representative or hiring an attorney.
Small Claims in an animal unto itself. (Sort of the platypus of the legal world.) Not only are the procedural rules thrown out, many times, so is the substantive law. However, we, the taxpayers, fund the court in almost its entirety (minus the minor filing fees), including interpreters. You may be surprised to learn that the court generally has interpreters available in Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Korean (at least in Manhattan, other boroughs differ slightly). "Weird" language interpreters (i.e., Portuguese, Urdu, French
) are also available, but usually take some time - sometimes to the point of having to re-schedule the hearing.
Anyway, the translator's oath is specifically designed to avoid the translator interjecting their own personal thoughts into the process. Obviously, unless the judge speaks the language, they will not know 100% for sure what is being said, so there's some leeway in the process for those not big on following oaths (although I have seen people in the gallery yell out "That's not what he said!" when people try to pull a fast one). Whether the judge will permit the family member to confer at the table without acting as the translator is possible, it's up to the particular judge. (I've seen judge's permit it in higher Courts, so there's a pretty good chance they'll permit it in Small Claims).
My best guess is that if the son asks to translate the court is almost certainly going to let him (unless the court's Chinese translator just happened to be in that courtroom at that exact moment, and even then, why pass up a free translator?) He can then sit at the table with the parents and effectuate his goal that way, and everyone is happy.
Good luck!
