HARRISBURG – According to a unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, guardians ad litem (GALs) will not be extended judicial immunity in juvenile dependency cases and may be subject to malpractice liability.
In a May 31 opinion authored by state Supreme Court Justice David N. Wecht, the Commonwealth’s high court denied such immunity to the Defender Association of Philadelphia and attorney Patrice Langenbach – on the grounds that the role of a GAL is one of legal advocacy, not adjudication – and remanded the case to its trial court, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
In the process, the state Supreme Court affirmed an earlier ruling in the matter from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which ordered that the DAP and Langenbach would have to face claims that they worked in concert with ex-Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris F. Younge to stop minors N.W.M. and E.M. from being returned to their parents.
N.W.M. had been brought to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia at the age of seven weeks in 2016 for examination, and it was determined that she sustained fractured ribs. Her parents denied being responsible for N.W.M’s injuries, but were not allowed to present evidence in their own defense which would have cleared them.
Instead of placing the infant with their grandmother, Younge decided to place N.W.M. in foster care – during which time, Langenbach advocated for her and her brother, E.M. She would remain for two years until the Superior Court reversed Younge’s ruling in 2018, and advised that Younge recuse herself from future proceedings in the case.
N.W.M., E.M. and their parents have argued that attorney Langenbach committed legal malpractice by disparaging the parents, trying to prevent their reunion from happening and that her employer, the DAP, was vicariously liable for her actions.
In response, Langenbach and the DAP filed preliminary objections asserting that they were immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial or quasi-judicial immunity. The trial court then sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed all claims.
This issue was seen differently by a split panel decision of the Superior Court in 2020, which led the case to be appealed by Langenbach and the DAP to the state Supreme Court.
Wecht and the full complement of his colleagues found that a GAL serves only a role for advocacy, not adjudication, and thus, those serving in that role were not eligible for quasi-judicial immunity.
“GALs in juvenile dependency cases serve to protect the child by advocating for the child’s best interests and non-conflicting legal interests. Although dependency GALs serve a unique role that differs from that of other attorneys, they do not operate as an arm of the court. GALs do not differ in kind from attorneys providing other court-appointed legal services to fulfill a public need. All appointed attorneys have ethical obligations to their clients. Based upon their function, we decline to provide categorical and absolute quasi-judicial immunity to GALs in juvenile dependency cases,” Wecht said.
“Furthermore, we conclude that the Superior Court is authorized to address novel as well as routine legal issues, and cases involving ‘policy’ considerations as well as those of a more pedestrian nature. As always, this Court sits to review intermediate tribunals’ decisions according to well-established rules and procedures. That is no cause for abstention by the lower courts in the meantime. We affirm the Superior Court’s order reversing the trial court, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Charles Becker, Andra Laidacker and Nadeem Bezar of Kline & Specter in Philadelphia represented the plaintiffs in the instant case, while A.J. Thomson of the Zafran Law Group represented the minors’ parents in the trial court matter.
“The plaintiffs are grateful for the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision declining to extend absolute immunity to guardians ad litem in dependency court proceedings. By preserving the right to seek accountability for negligent misconduct, the court’s decision affords important protections for children receiving child welfare services. We hope the decision will help deter harm to children,” Becker, Laidacker and Bezar jointly said.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 25 EAP 2022
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 1532 EDA 2020
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 200300399
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com