2016 IL App (2d) 150229
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Darin Heisterkamp sued Frances J. Pacheco and The Family Stress Clinic for psychological malpractice after Pacheco, court-appointed in the parties’ dissolution proceedings, diagnosed Heisterkamp with obsessive‑compulsive personality disorder, which Heisterkamp alleges was unsupported and caused him to lose custody.
- Defendants submitted the family-court evaluator request and the court order appointing Pacheco to perform psychological testing as exhibits to a combined section 2‑615/2‑619 motion to dismiss.
- Defendants argued they are absolutely immune from suit because they acted at the court’s direction as court-appointed experts.
- The trial court granted dismissal on immunity grounds; the appellate court reviewed de novo whether defendants are immune as a matter of law.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that court-appointed mental‑health experts acting at the court’s direction in custody/dissolution matters are entitled to absolute immunity from damage suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court-appointed mental‑health professional is immune from civil liability for services performed at the court's direction | Heisterkamp: immunity does not apply; Pacheco deviated from the standard of care and caused custody loss | Pacheco: absolute immunity applies because she acted at the court’s direction as a court-appointed expert | Held: Absolute immunity applies when expert acts at court direction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether section 604(b) of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act permits court‑ordered psychological testing | Heisterkamp: section 604(b) does not authorize subjecting parents to psychological testing; a court agent exceeded authority | Pacheco: section 604(b) authorizes the court to seek and rely on professional advice, including testing to inform custody decisions | Held: Court need not decide scope of 604(b); even if scope were doubtful, immunity still applies when expert acts under court order |
| Whether a court appointee loses immunity by exceeding their appointment or acting outside their agency | Heisterkamp: immunity should not shield conduct outside the appointee’s authority | Pacheco: reliance on the court’s appointment protects the appointee from collateral suit | Held: Appointment authorizes reliance; absolute immunity protects appointees from collateral damage suits irrespective of whether the direction was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009) (court-appointed experts acting at court direction are absolutely immune)
- Jones v. Brennan, 465 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 2006) (judicial immunity does not protect appointees who step outside their agency)
- Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill.2d 248 (Ill. 2004) (standards for de novo review of section 2‑619 dismissals)
- Johnston v. Weil, 241 Ill.2d 169 (Ill. 2011) (statutory construction recognizing court may seek professional advice under section 604)
- Grever v. Board of Trustees of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 353 Ill. App.3d 263 (Ill. App. 2004) (rejecting overly literal statutory interpretations that defeat legislative intent)