Quasi-Judicial Immunity for Forensic Mental Health Professionals in Court-Appointed Roles

Abstract

ABSTRACT Forensic mental health professionals (FMHPs) are frequently appointed by domestic courts to perform evaluations and related services to families in the midst of pre- or post-divorce developments. Clearly, this is one of the most stressful experiences that divorcing couples and their children encounter psychologically, economically, socially, and developmentally. Court-appointed FMHPs have a strong burden of responsibility to these family members to provide highly ethical, professional, and objective services to such participants. However, research demonstrates that regardless of the level of objectivity and accuracy of findings, FMHPs are frequently caught in the crossfire between parties and may be the subject of civil lawsuits and ethics complaints. This paper reviews the need for court-appointed FMHPs to have quasi-judicial immunity to protect them from frivolous lawsuits. Recent case law is reviewed, revealing that FMHPs in court-appointed roles serve as an extension of the court and therefore are protected from civil liability when they function within the community-accepted and ethical boundaries of the role.