If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

A court-appointed attorney for minor children in a divorce action was granted similar judicial immunity to that of a Guardian Ad Litem.

The plaintiff, Paul Carrubba was party to a marital dissolution in 1994. During this proceeding, the defendant, Emily J. Moskowitz, served as court-appointed counsel for the parties’ minor children, Jessican Carrubba and Matthew Carrubba. The marriage was dissolved on February 11, 1997. In a post-judgment motion, Paul Carrubba sought to disqualify Attorney Moskowitz. The court denied the motion. The plaintiff filed two subsequent complaints against the defendant: (1) the plaintiff claimed that the defendant intentionally or negligently caused Paul Carrubba to suffer emotional distress; and (2) Matthew Carrubba, through his father Paul Carrubba, alleged legal malpractice against the defendant. These claims were dismissed by the court, because the defendant’s status as a court-appointed attorney granted her judicial immunity. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the defendant was not immune from claims of emotional distress and legal malpractice.

The court found that Attorney Moskowitz had judicial immunity. It is generally accepted that a guardian ad litem, or attorney appointed to determine the best interests of a child, are entitled to judicial immunity. In the case at hand, the defendant was not specifically appointed as GAL for the children, but a court-appointed attorney for the minor children of the parties. A GAL and court-appointed attorney are subject to two differing statute. While these two roles are not synonymous, the court recognized that, as agents of the court, their functions blur. Overall, judicial immunity is granted to persons involved with the judicial process so as to allow such individuals to engage in fearless decision making for the benefit of the public. The defendant was appointed as counsel for the minor child to ensure independent representation of the child’s interest. Judicial immunity protects the attorney against attacks concerning the attorney’s proper exercise of discretion. The court reasoned that for judgment to be truly independent, the attorney must not be threatened by the possibility that differences of opinion with the child’s parent may give rise to tort litigation. The court found independent judgment on behalf of the minor child was paramount, as a minor is likely unable to express their true interest during the complex and distressing conditions of a divorce proceeding. In the respect, without any indication of malice or intent, the plaintiff had no basis with which to file his complaint.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: Carruba v. Moskowitz, 840 A.2d 557 ; 2004 Conn. App. LEXIS 40 (2004).