Court-appointed psychologists are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from lawsuits, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The opinion was issued in a case involving a psychologist who was sued in 1996 by a father who objected to the results of an evaluation in a child custody dispute.During custody proceedings in 1993, the man's ex-wife accused him of sexually abusing their daughter. A 3rd District Court judge appointed Dr. David Dodgion to perform psychological evaluations of the parties and provide the court with recommendations.
Justice Michael Zimmerman said while it was never explicitly stated in the record, Dodgion apparently recommended that the father not be given custody because he fit the profile of a sexual abuser. Following a lengthy trial, the father was denied custody but received full visitation rights.
The father later filed a lawsuit accusing Dodgion of negligent evaluation. After 3rd District Judge Stephen L. Henriod dismissed the claim on several grounds, including the psychologist's assertion of immunity, the father appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
In determining whether Dodgion was entitled to immunity, the justices said they were faced with the question of whether a psychologist appointed by the court to assist it in making a custody determination performs a function "integral to the judicial process." They concluded that the answer is yes.
"Fact-finding is an integral part of the judicial process and a function naturally associated with judges and juries, both of whom are granted immunity from suit," Zimmerman wrote.
If court-appointed psychologists are subject to lawsuits, they might be less willing to serve the court, Zimmerman said. Also, a court-appointed psychologist might be less likely to offer "the disinterested, objective opinion the court seeks in making such an appointment if he or she is subject to suit," he added.
But that doesn't mean there is no remedy for someone who objects to a psychologist's recommendation to a court, Zimmerman said. The complaining party has the right to bring any alleged deficiencies in the evaluation to the judge's attention and/or present his own expert testimony to refute the conclusions of the court-appointed psychologist, he said.
Chief Justice Richard Howe and Justices Christine Durham and Leonard Russon concurred with Zimmerman. Justice I. Daniel Stewart did not participate in the ruling.