17 Oct Tell me about “immunity” and how it pertains to the family and juvenile dependency courts.
For U.S. parents, the ability to seek justice in state court is sharply limited by the immunity protections built into their own state systems. You can sue a government worker in state court, but only in narrow circumstances and only after navigating several layers of immunity.
1. Sovereign Immunity
In religious texts, “sovereign” describes God as unquestionable and beyond accountability. In law, sovereign immunity reflects a similar idea: the government cannot be sued without its consent. This concept forms the backdrop for all other immunities.
2. Absolute Immunity
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that some officials need absolute immunity to protect them from “potentially disabling threats of liability.” Whether this shields them from civil or criminal consequences is a separate debate, but the protection is extremely strong.
3. Judicial Immunity
Judicial immunity protects judges from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official role. No judge in California—or anywhere in the U.S.—has ever been held civilly liable for judicial acts. Parents cannot sue judges for money damages. Judges’ orders can be reversed by appellate or federal courts, but the judges themselves remain immune. RaiseYourRights tracks judges who have been criminally prosecuted, but civil liability does not exist.
4. Quasi‑Judicial Immunity
Quasi‑judicial immunity extends similar protection to people who act in a judicial role even though they are not judges, including: Court commissioners, Court‑appointed psychologists, Mediators, Guardians ad litem / minor’s counsel, Custody evaluators, Other court‑appointed professionals. Juvenile court social workers and child‑protection workers also receive strong immunity, but they can sometimes be sued if a parent can prove malice, such as fabricating evidence. In theory, judges can discipline these individuals. In practice, it rarely happens. And district attorneys almost never bring criminal charges against someone acting under a court appointment.
This is why lawsuits against judges or court‑appointed professionals are almost always dismissed before they are ever heard. (See Gov. Code § 820.21.)
Non-US citizens mainly file claims directly against federal employees. So, US Citizens face additional barriers than non-US citizens because their claims started in state courts. For example:
- Section 1983 and the federal roadblock – In 1979, Congress expanded 42 U.S.C. § 1983, allowing individuals to sue certain government actors who would otherwise be immune. But most parents’ §1983 cases are dismissed immediately because family‑court and dependency‑court cases start in state court, and federal courts generally cannot review state‑court decisions.
- Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Parents must appeal through their state system first.
- 11th Amendment immunity barrier: It protects States, their agencies, and their employees (including social workers). It has been interpreted to mean you cannot sue your state or its employees for damages in federal court
- 10th Amendment, which reserves most internal matters to the states themselves.