holding that a "court appointed psychologist... ordered to conduct a psychological evaluation and submit a recommendation to the trial court in a custody proceeding is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity"
How later courts described this case
- holding that a "court appointed psychologist... ordered to conduct a psychological evaluation and submit a recommendation to the trial court in a custody proceeding is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity"
- extending quasi-judicial immunity to psychologists appointed by the court to perform custody evaluations because allegations against the psychologist were related to his role in the custody proceeding in which he “served as an arm of the court and performed a function integral to the judicial process”
- extending quasi-judicial immunity to psychologists appointed by a court to perform custody evaluations
- because a court-appointed psychologist was serving as “an arm of the court” and “perform[ing] a function integral to the judicial process,” he was entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bandstra, C.J.,
(concurring). I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for the reasons stated by the court in part m B of the majority’s opinion. Because summary disposition can be affirmed on the basis of the quasi- *136 judicial immunity principles described there, I also conclude that it is unnecessary for us to consider the application of the governmental immunity act (part m A of the majority’s opinion) or the propriety or applicability of Bullock v Huster, 209 Mich App 551, 555 ; 532 NW2d 202 (1995), vacated and remanded 451 Mich 884 (1996), (On Remand), 218 Mich App 400 ; 554 NW2d 47 (1996), and further conclude we need not “hold that private psychologists performing court-ordered custody evaluations are excluded from the scope of governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107).” Ante at 127.