Suit alleges constitutional breaches against attorneys acting for child’s interests in custody case
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against two lawyers acting as guardians ad litem on the basis that absolute immunity protected them due to their roles in the judicial process.
A custody dispute between the plaintiff and her former husband took place in the St. Louis County Circuit Court. The state court appointed two attorneys as guardians ad litem to represent the best interests of the couple’s child.
Based on the testimony and evaluations provided by the two lawyers and the court-appointed psychologist, the state court awarded sole legal custody of the child to the plaintiff's ex-husband. Both parents would share joint physical custody.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit under s. 1983 of United States Code, Title 42. She alleged that the lawyers’ actions during the proceedings violated her constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. She claimed that their conduct – including misrepresentation of qualifications, failure to report child abuse, and improper disclosure of medical information – was wrongful and illegal.
The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint under r. 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The district court ruled in the defendants’ favour. The lawyers were entitled to absolute immunity because their actions were integral to the judicial process, the district court held.
Immunity upheld
In Arseneau v. Pudlowski, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, which did not meet the legal standard required for it to proceed. The district court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint under r. 12(b)(6), the appeals court said.
The appeals court noted that guardians ad litem and court-appointed experts were entitled to absolute immunity when performing duties integral to the judicial process. This immunity extended to acts within the scope of their court-appointed duties, even if those acts were allegedly wrongful or illegal.
In this case, the appeals court ruled that the lawyers’ actions, which included presenting testimony, conducting investigations, and making custody recommendations, were within the scope of their judicial duties as guardians ad litem.
The appeals court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the lawyers exceeded their duties by engaging in wrongful and illegal conduct. The appeals court held that absolute immunity still applied.
