Defender Association Held Immune in Parents' Lawsuit Over Child Separation
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas held in an apparent issue of first impression that court-appointed guardians ad litem are immune from malpractice suits.
July 10, 2020 at 03:35 PM
7 minute read
In a decision that could have strong resonance in future malpractice lawsuits against guardians ad litem, a judge has ruled that the Defender Association of Philadelphia can't be sued over claims that one of its attorneys allegedly "colluded" with officials to have a couple's child removed from their home.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Abbe Fletman sustained the association's and defender Patrice Langenbach's preliminary objections to the couple's lawsuit. The judge held in an apparent issue of first impression that court-appointed guardians ad litem are immune from malpractice suits.
The parents of the child at issue—N.W.M., as she is referred to in court papers—were accused of child abuse after taking their daughter to Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania for what was diagnosed as fractured ribs. The parents maintained their innocence and claimed Langenbach improperly conspired with other officials to send their daughter into foster care instead of with family, known as kinship care, for the two-year duration of the case.
Matters were complicated by then-Family Court Judge Lyris Younge—who awaits sanctioning by state ethics authorities—when she unconstitutionally barred the parents from speaking in their defense at court. Younge also continued to hold N.W.M. in foster care with a convicted felon to force a confession of child abuse out of the parents.
But since Younge is not a party to the lawsuit, Fletman's focus was solely on the defenders and Langenbach, whom she determined to be shielded by judicial immunity.
"Because Ms. Langenbach was statutorily assigned to assist the court in determining N.W.M.['s] … best interests, she performed a 'quasi-judicial adjudicatory function' that entitles her to quasi-judicial immunity," Fletman wrote in her opinion. "And as such, she is 'absolutely immune from liability in civil damages for the consequences of activities which are at the core of [her] statutorily assigned tasks.'"
She added, "Quasi-judicial immunity applies whether or not Ms. Langenbach acted willfully or maliciously."
However, Fletman said if Langenbach and the defenders weren't immune, the parents would have "legally sufficient" claims against them. Fletman pointed to a ruling in which Langenbach was eventually removed from the case by Judge Allan Tereshko, who took over the case after Younge was told to recuse.
"This court finds that the child advocate failed to act in the best interests of the child by standing silently and failing to object or challenge the trial court [Younge] while it denied her child the right to be placed with her grandmother, in violation of CPSL (Child Protective Services Law)," Tereshko said in a transcript laid out in the parents' complaint, "and while the trial court advanced her plan to judicially coerce a confession from the parents as to the cause of the child's injury. This mute acquiescence requires a new child advocate be appointed for the child."
Recognizing the inclusion of Tereshko's ruling in the plaintiff's complaint, Fletman said, "These allegations support a claim that Ms. Langenbach breached her duty by failing to represent N.W.M.'s legal interests within acceptable professional standards during the dependency proceedings."
William Leonard of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, who represents the defendants, lauded Fletman's ruling as important for protecting those who work in child welfare.
"Lawyers who serve as guardians ad litem and child advocates for dependent children should not be exposed to second-guessing when they decide to support giving care of an infant—in this case, a baby girl who suffered three broken ribs in the first six weeks of her life and was found to be the victim of child abuse—to a foster parent, rather than returning her to the natural parents who never explained what happened to her in the first place," Leonard said.
Andrew Thomson of Edelstein Law in Philadelphia, who represents the couple, vowed an appeal to the dismissal of the case.
"We disagree with the ruling and will appeal. If this commonwealth decides to immunize the conduct that happened in Judge Younge's courtroom in this case and the others that will follow, these children will never have justice," Thomson said. "We hope that the appellate courts recognize that these attorneys should be held to a professional standard in representing children who were torn from their homes in direct violation of civil and natural law."
The Legal previously reported that N.W.M.'s parents, the Martinezes (whose names were changed to protect their child's privacy), were accused of child abuse after bringing their infant daughter to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for apparent discomfort. The child was diagnosed with fractured ribs, and a social worker recommended that she be removed from the parents' custody. The Martinezes said they did not know for certain how their daughter was injured, but guessed it was from the girl's younger brother running into her.
Langenbach and the Defender Association claimed in court papers that the parents were given fair treatment during the case, and said the parents never offered an explanation for their child's injury.
"The defender then listened to the parents' testimony in this case," court papers said. "The infant, they said, was never out of their care or sight and had suffered no trauma. They had no explanation for the broken bones."
A yearslong courtroom battle ensued, and N.W.M. was sent by the court to live with Tenisha Williams, who in 2009 pleaded guilty to charges of tampering with records and interfering with the custody of children in Lower Merion Township. N.W.M.'s brother, then a toddler, was allowed to stay with the Martinezes.
They were reunited with their daughter roughly two years later, after the Superior Court admonished Younge for "overreaching, failing to be fair and impartial, evidence of a fixed presumptive idea of what took place, and a failure to provide due process to the two parents involved."
In their preliminary objections, Langenbach and the Defender Association pointed to Younge's behavior as the cause of the drama.
"The defender was appointed as guardian-ad-litem and advocate for the children on the same day the motion was heard by Judge Lyris Younge. Judge Younge ordered the infant into foster care and the toddler into kinship care," court papers said. "The toddler was quickly reunited with his parents, but Judge Younge terminated parental rights with respect to the infant approximately a year and a half later. Subsequently, on appeal, the Superior Court reversed and criticized several of Judge Younge's rulings in this matter."
Court papers continued, "Judge Younge is no longer a judge in Family Court. Her Honor is subject to a recent, well-publicized Judicial Misconduct Board proceeding. Comments made by Judge Younge from the bench in this case were among those cited in the Judicial Misconduct Board complaint. Judge Younge is not a party to this proceeding for one reason: immunity."
Additionally, the defendants denied the existence of a conspiracy.
"The fact that throughout most of these proceedings Judge Younge, DHS, social workers, and the children's own guardian and advocate saw things one way—that the parents were not explaining what happened to their injured baby and were not otherwise accepting responsibility for her condition—does not amount to a conspiracy," they said in court papers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250