Hathcock v. Barnes, 95,484.

• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: CARL B. JONES.
• Citation: 2001 OK CIV APP 69,25 P.3d 295
• Parties: Holly HATHCOCK, Jada Hathcock, and Lundin Hathcock, by and through their parent and next friend, Aaron Hathcock, and Aaron Hathcock, individually and as parent and next friend of Holly, Jada and Lundin Hathcock, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Leslie BARNES, Ph.D., Defendant/Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 95,484.,95,484.
• Decision Date: 26 January 2001

25 P.3d 295
2001 OK CIV APP 69

Holly HATHCOCK, Jada Hathcock, and Lundin Hathcock, by and through their parent and next friend, Aaron Hathcock, and Aaron Hathcock, individually and as parent and next friend of Holly, Jada and Lundin Hathcock, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
Leslie BARNES, Ph.D., Defendant/Appellee

No. 95,484.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 1.

January 26, 2001.

Certiorari Denied May 8, 2001.

Christopher B. Lyons, Pryor, Oklahoma, and Rowe P. Stayton, Pro Hace Vice, Aurora, Colorado, for Appellants.

John Woodard, III, R. Bryan Morrison, Thayla Painter Bohn, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellee.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

25 P.3d 296

OPINION

CARL B. JONES, Judge:

¶ 1 Appellants, Holly Hathcock, Jada Hathcock, Lundin Hathcock and Aaron Hathcock, brought this malpractice action against Appellee, Leslie Barnes, Ph.D. The underlying case arose out of a child custody dispute in which Aaron Hathcock (the father) was accused of sexually abusing his daughters, Holly and Jada Hathcock. Dr. Barnes was appointed by the trial court to perform psychological evaluations on the family in order to assist the court in making its determination regarding custody and visitation.

¶ 2 After completing her clinical evaluations, Dr. Barnes testified that the custody of the children should be awarded to the mother, with the father only allowed supervised visitation. This recommendation was based upon Dr. Barnes' belief there was a likelihood the father had acted in a sexually inappropriate manner with one of his daughters. Before the trial court ruled on the issue of custody and visitation, the father entered into an agreement regarding custody and visitation. The agreement provided the mother would have custody of the children and the father would have supervised visitation with his daughters. Later, the father sought a modification of the decree after new evidence surfaced the daughter had been abused by a babysitter's minor son. Subsequently, the trial court granted the father permanent custody of his son and unsupervised visitation with his two daughters.

¶ 3 The father filed this lawsuit asserting Dr. Barnes was negligent in performing her custody evaluation. The father amended this lawsuit to include claims of fraud, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dr. Barnes filed a motion for summary judgment contending she was entitled to absolute immunity from suit for any acts or omissions which occurred in the course and scope of her role as a court-appointed psychologist. The trial court granted this motion. The father and the children appeal.

¶ 4 The issue on appeal is whether a psychologist, appointed by the court to assist it in making a custody determination, performs a function integral to the judicial process thereby entitling the psychologist to immunity from lawsuits arising from this process. Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, or other evidentiary materials establish that there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, all inferences and conclusions drawn from the evidence must be examined in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Kincaid v. Black Angus Motel, Inc., 1999 OK 54, 983 P.2d 1016, 1022.

¶ 5 It is a well-established...