State v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, 118 Nev. 609

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether state child protective services employees were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from negligence claims arising from the selection and supervision of foster care for a medically fragile child. The court held that such immunity applies to recommendations and information provided to the court but not to the agency's subsequent day-to-day management and care of the child. The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition and upheld the district court's refusal to dismiss the claims on quasi-judicial-immunity grounds.

Holdings

1. State agencies and employees engaged in child protective services are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity when they provide the court with reports, case plans, testing evaluations, recommendations, or comparable decision-making expertise concerning a child who is or may become a ward of the State.
2. Absolute quasi-judicial immunity does not apply to state agencies or employees for the day-to-day management and care of children in their custody after the court has made a decision ratifying the agency's recommendations.
3. The petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, a writ of prohibition was denied because the petitioners were not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for the challenged conduct and the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether state child-protective-services employees are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions involving the evaluation and recommendation of a child's placement and medical needs.
2. Whether absolute quasi-judicial immunity extends to the day-to-day management and care of a child after a court has ratified the agency's recommendations.
3. Whether the district court should be compelled by mandamus or prohibition to dismiss the negligence claims on immunity grounds.

Disposition

writ_denied