Vlastelica v. Brend
2011 IL App (1st) 102587
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- dissolution of marriage in 2000; Brend appointed as Kristian's child representative in 2003; multiple challenges to Brend and sanctions against Milijana; Brend allegedly engaged in conduct advocating Manheir's position and interfering with Milijana's custody; plaintiffs alleged legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference claims; circuit court dismissed under 2-619, finding absolute immunity for Brend's work as child representative; appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child representatives have absolute immunity from civil liability | Vlastelica argues no immunity for child representatives | Brend/Levin & Brend rely on statutory/common-law immunity | Yes, Brend entitled to absolute immunity |
| Source of immunity (statutory vs common law) | Section 506(a)(3) does not confer immunity | Immunity arises under common law and functional approach | Immunity arises from common law as an arm of the court |
| Whether Cooney v. Rossiter controls Illinois child representatives’ immunity | Cooney not binding, not an arm-of-court analogy | Cooney persuasive; child representative is arm of the court | Cooney persuasive; immunity extended to child representatives |
| Whether Golden v. Sigman limits immunity for advocacy activities | Advocacy elements resemble attorney work; not immune | Advocacy within duties; still immune | Immunity extends to advocacy within court-appointed duties; exceptions not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009) (guardian ad litem and child representatives are arms of the court with absolute immunity)
- Golden v. Sigman & Associates, Ltd., 611 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses limitations of immunity for advocacy tasks; ultimately supports immunity for child representative within duties)
- Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914 (Supreme Court 1984) (public defenders not immune under 1983 for intentional misconduct; relevance to public defender analogy)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court 1985) (functional approach factors for absolute immunity)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (Supreme Court 1983) (judicial immunity foundational rationale)