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.

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.