holding that a child 11 services worker enjoyed absolute immunity for “bringing dependency proceedings” and 12 for “the testimony he gave during the dependency proceedings,” but not for allegedly 13 ordering a child “to stay away from his home until after the hearing before the juvenile 14 court”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a child 11 services worker enjoyed absolute immunity for “bringing dependency proceedings” and 12 for “the testimony he gave during the dependency proceedings,” but not for allegedly 13 ordering a child “to stay away from his home until after the hearing before the juvenile 14 court”
- finding it “beyond question” that social worker was “entitled 21 to absolute immunity for the testimony he gave during the dependency proceedings and the 22 custody hearing because witnesses, including government witnesses, are immune from liability 23 for their testimony.”
- concluding that a social worker’s own restraining order, which “involved no physical interference with parental custody,” was protected by qualified immunity because it violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
- holding that certain officers of the court, including court counselors, have absolute 4 || immunity when performing quasi-judicial functions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1160 BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
I believe that the Meyers have stated sufficient allegations of deprivation of statutory and constitutional parental rights by alleging that Haaland ordered David Meyers to stay away from his home. I would remand for resolution of the factual issues. involved in a qualified immunity defense.