A.L. VS. SHARON RYAN MONTGOMERY, PSY.D. (L-3195-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1630-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- A.L. (plaintiff) sued Dr. Sharon Ryan Montgomery (defendant), a court‑appointed Family Part psychologist, alleging negligence, fraud, breach of contract, civil rights violations, and seeking punitive damages over evaluation reports she prepared in post‑judgment custody/parenting‑time proceedings.
- Defendant prepared multi‑page evaluations (2009 and 2012) at the Family Part judge’s request after interviews, testing, and document review; her reports were provided to the court and admitted subject to cross‑examination but not considered for truth at a plenary hearing.
- The Family Part judge relied on defendant’s work to navigate long‑running post‑divorce disputes between A.L. and his ex‑spouse regarding alleged parental alienation and restructuring parenting time.
- Plaintiff filed an eight‑count amended complaint in the Law Division (2014) challenging defendant’s role and findings; defendant moved for summary judgment asserting judicial immunity as a court‑appointed expert.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment for defendant (Nov. 5, 2015), concluding she owed no duty to A.L. and was protected by judicial immunity; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court‑appointed psychologist is immune from suit for reports to the Family Part | Immunity should not bar A.L.’s claims; defendant acted negligently and engaged in misconduct toward him and the children | Court‑appointed expert serving the court owes no duty to the parties and is entitled to judicial immunity for evaluations and recommendations | Court affirmed: judicial immunity applies to a court‑appointed psychologist performing evaluations for the Family Part (P.T. precedent controls) |
| Whether disputed expert affidavits and alleged suppression/alteration of evidence preclude summary judgment | Two expert affidavits and allegations of altered/suppressed evidence create genuine issues of material fact | Affidavits/claims do not overcome that defendant’s role was court‑directed and immune; no admissible showing of actionable misconduct | Held for defendant: factual allegations did not defeat immunity or create material fact issues sufficient to deny summary judgment |
| Whether defendant’s evaluation exceeded her appointment (e.g., doing custody evaluation when none was before the court) | Defendant improperly expanded role and misrepresented scope, producing actionable conduct | Her evaluation was undertaken at the court’s request to assist in best‑interest determinations, within her appointed role | Held for defendant: report fell within court‑appointed evaluative role and is protected |
| Whether procedural defects (discovery failures, denial to file a reply) precluded summary judgment | Trial court erred in applying summary judgment where discovery/discretionary relief issues remained | Even accepting procedural disputes, immunity is a bar as a matter of law | Court affirmed: procedural contentions insufficient to overcome immunity or warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- P.T. v. Richard Hall Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 364 N.J. Super. 546 (Law Div. 2000) (court‑appointed psychologist performing evaluations and reporting to the court is entitled to judicial immunity)
- P.T. v. Richard Hall Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 364 N.J. Super. 460 (App. Div. 2003) (appellate affirmation of Law Division’s immunity ruling)
- Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (2013) (de novo standard of review for summary judgment)
- Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (discusses appointment and limits of parenting coordinators)