Can I sue the courts with a legitimate case?

[Phaedrus]

What is the name of your state? CA
I was born in American Fork Utah in March of 1985. My parents were divorced when I was three and of course my mother gained custody. A year later my mother got in serious trouble and was sent to prison. There was a hearing in which custody was initially intended to be handed over to my father. My grandmother on my mother's side showed up to the hearing unnanounced and convinced the judge that the best thing for the child (me) would be to let her take me to California and watch over me until my mother was fit to be a mother. So my shocked father was stuck with visitation rights and a monthly child support check which was paid to the County of Santa Clara. Now the judge did not give custody to my grandmother, I still belonged to my mother, he just gave her the right to take me to California and watch over me. So I lived with my grandparents in California and when my mother was released from prison my grandmother refused to give me back to her. My grandmothers decision to keep me away from my mother was probably best for me since my mother was fighting a chronic drug addiction. Anyway my point is that since my mother still legally had custody of me the child support checks were not going to my grandmother to help raise me and pay for my living expenses, they were going to my mother-helping her pay for her addiction. I feel that the both the courts in Utah and California have done me, my mother, my father, and my grandparents an injustice and I was wondering what can be done about it. Now that I am 18 and a legal adult would I have a legitimate case to sue these courts? Or is this just a lost cause?

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Why did your grandparents not go to court and have the custody order changed so that you would benefit from the support?

I do not see what you could do at this point.

Joe

 

[Phaedrus]

well they did go to the courts, in california. and they weren't able to get custody until i was nearly 15 years old. it seems that it was a long process between states and a few other complications.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state? CA
I was born in American Fork Utah in March of 1985. My parents were divorced when I was three and of course my mother gained custody. A year later my mother got in serious trouble and was sent to prison. There was a hearing in which custody was initially intended to be handed over to my father. My grandmother on my mother's side showed up to the hearing unnanounced and convinced the judge that the best thing for the child (me) would be to let her take me to California and watch over me until my mother was fit to be a mother. So my shocked father was stuck with visitation rights and a monthly child support check which was paid to the County of Santa Clara. Now the judge did not give custody to my grandmother, I still belonged to my mother, he just gave her the right to take me to California and watch over me. So I lived with my grandparents in California and when my mother was released from prison my grandmother refused to give me back to her. My grandmothers decision to keep me away from my mother was probably best for me since my mother was fighting a chronic drug addiction. Anyway my point is that since my mother still legally had custody of me the child support checks were not going to my grandmother to help raise me and pay for my living expenses, they were going to my mother-helping her pay for her addiction. I feel that the both the courts in Utah and California have done me, my mother, my father, and my grandparents an injustice and I was wondering what can be done about it. Now that I am 18 and a legal adult would I have a legitimate case to sue these courts? Or is this just a lost cause?

My response:

Point One: Your grandmother was a voluntary guardian. As such, she wasn't entitled to the child support - - unless she asked for it, and made a compelling argument for it - - since she was a voluntary guardian, the court looked over HER financials and found that she was able to care for you without additional assistance - - which brings me to my next point.

Point Two: Your mother didn't get any money. Since she didn't need or get the money, the money went to the State. Why? Because when there's money available, no one, and I mean no one, gets to go to prison for free. That money your Dad paid went to reimburse the taxpayers of the State of California for your mother's "room and board" in prison, and also court costs, fees, fines, and her appointed attorney.

Point Three: The courts, judges, and the government in general, are immune from lawsuits.

Point Four: Even if you were entitled to any of the child support money, you as a child could only sue your father for any arrearages, if there are any. And, you could only sue through a Guardian ad Litem, and if you would have won, the money would have gone to your mother (or the State) anyway - - not you. But, since you're an adult now, you have no legal standing to sue anyone for anything concerning your child support.

IAAL

 

[Phaedrus]

thanks for all your responses...i was just curious because it felt like a lot of people in this situation got screwed but i guess the best thing to do is just move on and not let anything like that happen when i have kids..but your replies have been appreciated

but I Am Always Liable "Point Three: The courts, judges, and the government in general, are immune from lawsuits."

^^^^that seems peculiar to me, where is this written? I would like to know more about this fact.

So with the japanese interment camps back in the 40's, how was the money that was given to the families as a sort of an apology for the whole thing set into motion, if not by suing the government? Was that just something the government decided to do without any public involvement. Please inform me i am curious.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

thanks for all your responses...i was just curious because it felt like a lot of people in this situation got screwed but i guess the best thing to do is just move on and not let anything like that happen when i have kids..but your replies have been appreciated

but I Am Always Liable "Point Three: The courts, judges, and the government in general, are immune from lawsuits."

^^^^that seems peculiar to me, where is this written? I would like to know more about this fact.

So with the japanese interment camps back in the 40's, how was the money that was given to the families as a sort of an apology for the whole thing set into motion, if not by suing the government? Was that just something the government decided to do without any public involvement. Please inform me i am curious.

My response:

Scattered throughout the Government Code (and other Codes as well) are additional statutes shielding public entities and their employees from tort liability under specified circumstances. Notable examples include:

A common law immunity protects judges from civil liability in all aspects of their decision-making. [See Frost v. Geernaert (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1104, 1107-1109, 246 Cal.Rptr. 440, 442; Tagliavia v. County of Los Angeles (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 759, 761-763, 169 Cal.Rptr. 467, 468-470]

Although there is no known case in point, this immunity appears as applicable to temporary judges as to sitting judges. [See 66 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 69 (1983)]

Tort Immunity:
A common law immunity protects judges from tort claims or actions arising from the performance of their duties. [See Frost v. Geernaert (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1104, 1107-1109, 246 Cal.Rptr. 440, 442; Tagliavia v. County of Los Angeles (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 759, 761-763, 169 Cal.Rptr. 467, 468]

The same doctrine has been extended to persons who are not judges but who act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity; e.g., parole board members, hearing officers, administrative law judges. [See Taylor v. Mitzel (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 665, 670-671, 147 Cal.Rptr. 323, 325--Medi-Cal claims hearing officer; Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 853-854, 271 Cal.Rptr. 893, 898--court-appointed neutral]

The doctrine of "quasi-judicial immunity" extends absolute "judicial immunity" protection to persons who, though not judges, are acting in a judicial or "quasi-judicial" capacity. The focus is on the nature of the duty performed and its nexus to the judicial process--i.e., whether the work was functionally comparable to that of a judge (acts of an adjudicatory or decision-making nature). [Greene v. Zank (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 497, 508, 204 Cal.Rptr. 770, 777; Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 853-854, 271 Cal.Rptr. 893, 897-898; see Budwin v. American Psychological Ass'n (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 875, 885, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 459; Atkinson-Baker & Associates, Inc. v. Kolts (9th Cir. 1993) 7 F.3d 1452--immunity extends to federal court special master performing adjudicatory functions]

Public officials and court-appointed persons:
Quasi-judicial immunity has long been extended to grand jurors, administrative law hearing officers, and prosecutors, as well as to the State Bar and the Committee of Bar Examiners (and their officials when acting in matters pertaining to Bar admission). [See Howard v. Drapkin, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 853, 271 Cal.Rptr. at 898, and cases cited therein; Rosenthal v. Vogt (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 69, 280 Cal.Rptr. 1; also see Falls v. Super.Ct. (Samaniego) (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044-1046, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 908, 916-917--prosecutor immune from liability for negligently lulling witness in gang murder trial to believe he was not in danger of retaliation (witness subsequently murdered)]

Nonjudicial court officers:
Nonjudicial officers enjoy quasi-judicial immunity to the extent they perform "judicial functions"--i.e., official court tasks involving the exercise of discretionary judgment. [Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. 429, 435-437, 113 S.Ct. 2167, 2171-2172; In re Castillo (9th Cir. BAP 2000) 248 B.R. 153, 157]

A court reporter who merely records proceedings verbatim has no discretion in carrying out his or her duties and thus is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity in that capacity. [Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., supra, 508 U.S. at 436-437, 113 S.Ct. at 2171-2172]
Similarly, a court clerk, in giving notice of hearings set by the court, exercises no discretion but merely executes the court's directive. Hence, no immunity attaches to the failure to give such notice. [See In re Castillo, supra, 248 B.R. at 159-160]

A bankruptcy trustee is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity when scheduling hearings . . . because the scheduling of hearings is delegated by the court and "involves management of the court's calendar, a discretionary function normally performed by judges that furthers the ultimate process of adjudicating disputes between parties." [In re Castillo, supra, 248 B.R. at 158-159]

However, the trustee is not entitled to immunity when giving notice of the hearings--a nondiscretionary act akin to that performed by the court clerk (above). [In re Castillo, supra, 248 B.R. at 159-160]

Other "neutral" third persons:
There is also authority extending quasi-judicial immunity to nonappointed "neutral" third persons who perform the functions "normally performed by judges" and are an "integral part" of the judicial process (e.g., independent psychologists and other experts stipulated to by parties to make evaluation and report findings to judge). [Howard v. Drapkin, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 853, 271 Cal.Rptr. at 898]

"[A]bsolute quasi-judicial immunity is properly extended to these neutral third-parties for their conduct in performing dispute resolution services which are connected to the judicial process and involve either (1) the making of binding decisions, (2) the making of findings or recommendations to the court or (3) the arbitration, mediation, conciliation, evaluation or other similar resolution of pending disputes." [Howard v. Drapkin, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 860, 271 Cal.Rptr. at 903; compare Susan A. v. County of Sonoma (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 88, 98, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 34--defense psychologist not neutral third person entitled to immunity]

IAAL

 

[Phaedrus]

thanks thats all very interesting

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

thanks thats all very interesting

My response:

Yes, it is. But, what did you learn from it?

IAAL

 

[Phaedrus]

well i learned that in this respect our government has adopted a philosophy similar to englands that "the king can do no harm." I learned that you cannot sue the the government because it is shielded by the 11th amendment and like you said, other government codes. I suppose this rule is meant to protect judges and other officials that must make difficult judgement decisions because they should not be held responsible for those decisions. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what i understand from all of this. I also read somewhere that the state legislature may waive state immunity from lawsuits and in turn be sued. I wonder in what case would that state choose to do this.

I have another question now, i was watching the news and saw a story about an 18 year old that stole a car and crashed it into a bunch of other parked cars, he was from puerto rico, so he claimed diplomatic immunity ...and i guess there is a chance that he will not be punished because of this, depending on if puerto rico chooses to waive his diplomatic immunity. So my next question is, are judges and other governmental officials immune to all types of lawsuits? or just those that deal with their duties on the job and in the courtroom? Can a judge be sued as a normal citizen if the case has nothing to do with his judicial duties?

 

[Phaedrus]

soveriegn immunity?

IIAL, also I found that the federal government infact is not immune from lawsuits, individuals of the courts and government are immuned but agencies and the government as a whole can definately be sued. Here is a link for a case where AT&T sued the government and won, and there was no waivering of soveriegn immunitiy:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/sept97/95-5153.html
Let me know if I'm out of my mind, but in this case I believe the government is being sued. I understand that there is soveriegn immunity but i don't understand it in its entirety, please enlighten me.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Re: soveriegn immunity?

IIAL, also I found that the federal government infact is not immune from lawsuits, individuals of the courts and government are immuned but agencies and the government as a whole can definately be sued. Here is a link for a case where AT&T sued the government and won, and there was no waivering of soveriegn immunitiy:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/sept97/95-5153.html
Let me know if I'm out of my mind, but in this case I believe the government is being sued. I understand that there is soveriegn immunity but i don't understand it in its entirety, please enlighten me.

My response:

Yes, a governmental entity can be sued. It's found in the Tort Claims Act of California. You have to ask the entity for permission to sue it. However, as I stated earlier, a judge has absolute immunity, and it is the judge that you'd need to sue for his decision. But, even if you could sue the government and/or the judge, you'd need "legal standing" to sue. You don't have "legal standing".

Please talk to a local attorney for any further questions, concerns or definitions.

Thanks for writing.

IAAL

 

[Phaedrus]

what's wrong with me asking my questions on this board?
thanks for replying