One Mother's Lawsuit against Evaluator & 2 GAL's
Quasi-Judicial Immunity: Top Tool in Custody Switching & Cover Up
Like so many mothers desperate to keep and protect their children via Family Court, Missouri Mom Devon was not able to protect her son.
So Devon did what so many mothers have wanted to do, but few have actually been able. She sued the court-appointed experts—2 GAL’s and an evaluator.
PROTECTIVE ORDER
A few years ago, Devon was granted a Protective Order after her son disclosed sexual abuse by a sibling at his father’s house and her ex threatened to kill her.
All’s good—for a few months.
However, consistent with the Family Court playbook, a guardian ad litem (GAL) [children’s attorney] and a custody evaluator were appointed to investigate and evaluate the “custody” case.
Transforming the case into a “custody dispute” serves to equalize the playing field for the father and disguise the fact that it is really a mother trying to protect her child.
As usual, these two appointees (and later another GAL) proceeded to cover up the evidence of abuse and unfitness of the father, who may have had mental and substance use issues. He had threatened to kill Devon and her new husband, a serious form of emotional abuse—not to mention, a crime.
Predictably, these court-appointed lackeys falsely labeled Devon with Borderline Personality Disorder—a favorite, reminiscent of the false accusations used against innocent women in the Salem witch trials. They concluded with their “expert” opinion that there was no risk to the boy in living with his father.
Judge Bruce Hilton granted the father sole legal custody, supposedly relying on the appointees’ recommendations. But it is common knowledge amongst protective mothers that insiders are often used precisely because judges know they can be counted on to aid in the cover up of paternal abuse, falsely label the mother with something—anything—negative, and otherwise steer the case to the father.
Devon was then found in contempt for not forcing her son to go to his father’s. She appealed that ruling and lost.
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT
Last year, Devon gave up on Family Court and filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against all three appointees. She claimed they violated her rights to substantive and procedural due process and to equal protection guaranteed under the Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendments, and under State law as well.
The relief she requested was vacating the judgment giving the father custody, striking the evaluator’s report that included lies about her, and monetary damages of $100K+.
The suit claimed the appointees intentionally blocked reporting of the sexual abuse so it could not be addressed in court proceedings. Also that they blocked the boy’s therapist, to whom he had disclosed the abuse, from testifying. It claimed Devon had been threatened with loss of custody if she didn’t stay quiet and drop the case—a common tactic used against mothers.
LAWSUIT DISMISSED
Like Aneta’s 2020 lawsuit in Illinois, Devon’s case was dismissed last week. Missouri Federal Judge Sarah Pitlyk relied largely on the doctrine of “quasi-judicial immunity” to tank it. It was reported on by local MSM: “Judge cites quasi-judicial immunity in opinion against mom who sued St. Louis family court insiders”
Judge Pitlyk had been a law clerk for SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh, credibly accused sexual assaulter. She was appointed to the bench in 2019 despite the ABA (American Bar Association) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously concluding that Pitlyk lacked the professional qualifications for a district court judge.
Assuming those allegations [of sexual assault] are true, they relate to decisions squarely committed to [the evaluator’s] independent judgment in formulating and presenting recommendations to the Court.
Judge Pitlyk asserts her ruling that even if Devon’s son had been sexually assaulted at the father’s house (and may continue to be), the fact that the evaluator made an “independent judgment” exonerates them. Which is ridiculous. She is knowingly aiding and abetting in the cover up and enabling of sexual abuse.
Not to mention that court appointees are anything but independent. They all know which side they are expected to be on if they want to continue to be appointed by judges. And it is not the mother’s.
QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Judge Pitlyk largely relied on the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity to dismiss the lawsuit. So what exactly is that?
As Judge Pitlyk states in her ruling:
Nonjudicial persons who fulfill quasi-judicial functions intimately related to the judicial process have absolute immunity for damage claims arising from their performance of the delegated functions.
But mothers who are being deprived of their civil and human rights would dispute that. If the system is going to provide quasi-judicial immunity to appointees, it should also require they uphold due process, equal protection and other Constitutional protections.
After all, the judicial system is based on the Constitution—or is supposed to be... Family Court, in actual practice, operates outside the Constitution.
UNQUALIFIED APPOINTEES
The suit also claimed that the appointees were not qualified to investigate or make recommendations, as they had no expertise in mental health issues, alcohol or drug addiction, medicine, trauma, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, or childhood and adolescent development.
The evaluator actually admitted to falsifying elements (lying) about Devon, but, as in Leila’s case, his reports have continued to be used against her.
There are two recent articles in MSM, one from the U.S. and one from the UK, that address the issue of unqualified experts being used in custody cases.
ProPublica’s “A Custody Evaluator Who Disbelieves 90% of Abuse Allegations Recommended a Teen Stay Under Her Abusive Father’s Control” is told from the abused, frustrated teen’s perspective.
The Guardian’s “Senior high court judge to address issues in ‘parental alienation’ cases: Legitimacy of court-appointed ‘experts’ to come under review after mother loses custody appeal” highlights how a mother lost custody due to an unqualified expert reporting she was alienating the children from the father, the most common false accusation used against mothers.
But it is not only unqualified appointees who are falsely accusing mothers of alienation, mental illness (or whatever). Even in jurisdictions and cases where there is training and regulation of experts, they falsely accuse mothers, since the goal is to aid the judge in the custody switch to the father.
EYES ON THE BALL
Just as the strict regulation of experts may help a bit, but not solve the core problem, neither will focusing on their profiteering or the quasi-judicial immunity granted them.
It’s true that experts should be qualified, should not be making extravagant profits, and should not have immunity; and, if denied those perks, it may be slightly harder for judges to switch custody, the fact is they still can get away with that—regardless of experts, facts, evidence, or law.
Why? Because Family Court judges can effectively do whatever they want. Women’s eyes must be kept on the ball:
The Family Court system is designed so that judges can keep fathers in power and control in the family.
An entirely new system is needed for mothers to get justice and protection.
COVER UP
Devon’s case is a good example of the subset issue of the systemic cover up of sexual abuse. She was threatened with loss of custody if she did not shut up and stop trying to protect her son, as most mothers in this situation are. Children are treated as hostages to extort compliance.
Devon’s ex was given sole legal custody so he can stop the boy from going to a therapist and telling about the abuse.
It's rigged. They want to silence women and children and they have successfully silenced my son.
Feel free to comment and share in support of Devon.
The Women’s Coalition is documenting custody cases that involve sexual abuse to support our contention that judges are deliberately minimizing and disregarding evidence of abuse.
If you reported sexual abuse of your child in Family Court, please take a minute to fill out this form. You may do this anonymously.
You may also support the Coalition’s important work through a one-time or recurring contribution through PayPal.
Join The Women’s Coalition
Join the global dialogue on social media
So many similarities to my situation except it was my ex molesting them- gal happily testified she looked at 'none' of the evidence I gave her but only what 'father' gave her & she refused to speak to the children. Judge & her minions (GAL, PAS expert (who helped terrorize children weekly telling them they had no rights & it was his job to protect their father from them & me), & known corrupt doc for phony psych eval that didnt match one done by US Marshalls) made it very clear they would punish my children & me (& also force mote difficulties upon us) if they dared report anymore abuse. I fought with all I had for many years- the Judge & all of her minions lied against my children & me to protect a child molester - he began supplying alcohol & drugs in their teens but Judge said I had no evidence- I brought the evidence but she consistently refused to even look at it - Judge's #1 priority is to protect abusers - damage as many children as they can
ANGERING. Just effing angering.
P A T R I A R C H Y = = = A N Y " family " " law " court. WORLDWIDE.