Harrison v. Mazza

A court-appointed custody evaluator that is directed to investigate and evaluate the custody situation, and inform the court of the best interests of the child, is under the authority of the court and thus receives judicial immunity.

Appellants appeal from a judgment of dismissal of their fraud claims against the defendant, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint against defendant. Specifically, appellants argue that defendant’s actions, as a court-appointed custody evaluator for their dissolution case, amounted to tortious conduct when he omitted certain information from the custody evaluation report and recommended parenting plan. The Court of Appeals held that defendant was entitled to judicial immunity since he was performing judicial functions as a court-appointed custody evaluator and thus, the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint. In coming to this conclusion, the court looked at several factors: (1) whether the official’s actions are “functionally comparable to judicial actions;” (2) whether the action “depends on legal opinions or discretionary judgments;” and (3) whether the “acts in question are primarily concerned with the official’s role as a judicial or quasi-judicial officer.” Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 305 Or 419, 427 (1988). The court ultimately held that defendant’s role was under the authority of the court. However, the court vacated the attorney-fee award because the trial court did not make findings as to the objective reasonableness of the claim. ATTORNEY-FEE AWARD VACATED AND REMANDED; OTHERWISE AFFIRMED.