N.W.M. v. Langenbach, P.

J-A17002-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
N.W.M. AND E.M., MINORS, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THROUGH THEIR PARENTS AND : PENNSYLVANIA
NATURAL GUARDIANS, J.M., N.M., :
AND J.A.M. :
:
Appellants :
:
v. :
:
PATRICE LANGENBACH AND :
DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF :
PHILADELPHIA :
:
Appellees : No. 1532 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered July 8, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 200300399
BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 1, 2022
I join the majority disposition in full. I write separately, however,
because I am persuaded by my colleague’s position in the concurring and
dissenting memorandum that this Court has previously addressed in the first
instance whether judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity applies to
certain individual officials carrying out or participating in judicial or quasi-
judicial functions. Consequently, I do not think that it is beyond the purview
of this Court to decide whether a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) would enjoy such
immunity. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the majority’s reliance on Z.F.1 by
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17002-21
and through Parent v. Bethanna, 244 A.3d 482 (Pa.Super. 2020), in which
this Court stated:
…[T]he Defender Association is asking us to establish a new
immunity, which is not for us to do. Although it contends
we would not be creating new law, but rather extending
existing principles, we disagree. The Defender Association
concedes that it has not cited any existing Pennsylvania
statute, rule, or case law establishing that a guardian ad
litem enjoys immunity. It instead cites cases from other
states and statements in a federal decision to make what
are fundamentally policy arguments that we should extend
immunity to it.
But it is not the institutional role of the Superior Court to
make such policy decisions. Rather, the Superior Court is
an error-correcting court and we leave policy questions to
the Supreme Court and the General Assembly. Matter of
M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 986 (Pa.Super. 2019). “It is not the
prerogative of an intermediate appellate court to enunciate
new precepts of law or to expand existing legal doctrines.”
Id. To do as the Defender Association asks, rather than
applying existing rules, we would have to import them into
a novel context where they do not have obvious application.
We therefore decline the invitation to create an immunity
for guardians ad litem and reject the Defender Association’s
first issue.
Id. at 494. This Court considered the exact immunity issue we are now asked
to decide in Z.F.1 and declined to create immunity for GALs in that case. See
id. We are bound by that decision. See Czimmer v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 122 A.3d 1043, 1063 n.19 (Pa.Super. 2015)
(explaining it is beyond power of Superior Court panel to overrule prior
decision of Superior Court except in circumstances where intervening
authority by Supreme Court calls into question previous decision of this
Court). Therefore, I concur with the majority’s disposition.
-2-