Can’t Sue Guardian Ad Litem

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought against a court-appointed guardian ad litem

On July 27, 2023, plaintiff filed the instant action for negligence and professional malpractice against Attorney Murray-Rapoza, who was a court-appointed guardian ad litem for plaintiff’s minor children during his divorce action. The plaintiff alleges that, in her time as guardian ad litem, defendant lied in court, engaged in professional misconduct, acted with an abject bias in favor of the children’s mother, and failed to recuse herself from the case despite a conflict of interest with plaintiff over outstanding fees. The plaintiff seeks $4.5 million in damages. The defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure based on G.L. 1956 § 15-5-16.2(c)(1)(ix), which vests court-appointed guardians ad litem with quasi-judicial immunity for acts performed within the scope of their duties as the guardian. After a hearing, the Superior Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered final judgment in her favor. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal on January 8, 2024.

The court

Before this Court, plaintiff argues that the statutory immunity should not apply because the alleged acts of perjury, extortion, child abuse, and conspiracy are outside the scope of the guardian’s duties. However, upon a careful review of plaintiff’s complaint, it is clear that all of the allegations therein arise from purported actions taken by defendant while serving as an agent of the Family Court and fulfilling her duties as the guardian ad litem. Indeed, the first paragraph of plaintiff’s complaint states that he is bringing a civil claim against defendant for professional malpractice and negligence in her service as guardian ad litem. This is precisely the type of litigation from which the General Assembly sought to immunize court-appointed guardians. See § 15-5-16.2(c)(1)(ix); see also Cok, 876 F.2d at 3 (“[A]llegations of malice, or bad faith or, as here, a claim of conspiracy will not defeat the protection of derivative absolute immunity for actions taken pursuant to court orders.”). As such, defendant was acting within the scope of her duties as the guardian ad litem at all times relevant hereto and is therefore entitled to immunity.

(Mike Frisch)