AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a contentious custody dispute between the parents of Lily Kimbrell. During the proceedings, Kathrin M. Kinzer-Ellington was appointed as a guardian ad litem to determine the best interests of the Kimbrells' minor children. The father, W. David Kimbrell, sued both the mother, Lorraine Kimbrell, and the guardian ad litem, alleging their conduct had injured Lily. The core of the dispute revolves around whether a parent has the standing to sue a guardian ad litem for alleged tortious conduct during a custody proceeding (paras 1-3, 6).

Procedural History

• Kimbrell v. Kimbrell, 2013-NMCA-070: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that parents retain standing to sue their child’s guardian ad litem, subject to the guardian's limited immunity (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner Kathrin Kinzer-Ellington: Argued for absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit arising from the performance of duties as a guardian ad litem unless the conduct was clearly outside the scope of the appointment (para 2).
• Respondent W. David Kimbrell (Father): Alleged that the guardian ad litem and the mother's conduct had injured Lily, including breaches of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, prima facie tort, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether a Rule 1-053.3 guardian ad litem is protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit arising from the performance of his or her duties (para 2).
• Whether a parent has standing to sue a Rule 1-053.3 guardian ad litem during a pending custody proceeding (para 2).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Kinzer-Ellington, holding that the guardian ad litem is absolutely immune from suit for the alleged misconduct and that the father does not have standing to sue on behalf of the child (para 22).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court found that a Rule 1-053.3 guardian ad litem serves as an arm of the court and is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from liability for the performance of their duties, provided the actions are within the scope of their appointment. The Court also held that a parent does not have standing to sue a guardian ad litem on behalf of the child in a custody dispute, as the court has already determined that the parent is incapable of acting in the best interests of the child. The Court reasoned that allowing such a lawsuit would create a conflict of interest and potentially interfere with the administration of justice in both the custody proceeding and the tort action. The Court concluded that the guardian ad litem's actions, including any alleged involvement in blocking communications between siblings, were not clearly and completely outside the scope of her appointment, thus granting her absolute immunity from being sued for the alleged collusion (paras 11-22).