The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on August 18, 2026, in the case of Neeley v. Thomas, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0113, determining the extent of legal immunity for therapists involved in child custody cases. The ruling impacts the Neeley family, who had claimed malpractice and emotional distress against their child’s therapist, Andrea Thomas, and her employer, Grossman & Grossman, LTD. This decision is significant as it addresses the legal protections available to professionals working within the judicial system, particularly in sensitive family matters.
The Neeley family, which includes Austin Neeley, Brittany Robinette, and their children, was involved in a long-standing dependency case concerning their children, V.R., A.L.N., and A.R.N. The family’s legal troubles began in 2016 when the Department of Child Safety (DCS) intervened due to allegations of abuse and neglect. The children were placed in foster care, leading to a series of court proceedings aimed at determining their custody and welfare.
During the dependency proceedings, V.R. was referred to Thomas for therapy, following reports of concerning behavior. The foster parents, who were seeking to adopt V.R., expressed their fears about her returning to her biological mother, which influenced Thomas's recommendations to DCS. The court eventually became concerned about the foster parents’ influence and ordered changes in how therapy was conducted.
The dispute escalated when the Neeley family filed a lawsuit against Thomas and Grossman, claiming malpractice and emotional distress. They argued that Thomas’s recommendations to suspend visitation with the mother were harmful and unjustified. The Grossman defendants sought summary judgment, claiming quasi-judicial immunity, which protects certain professionals from legal liability when performing duties related to the judicial process.
In its ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision. The court found that while the Grossman defendants were performing functions related to the judicial process, they were not entitled to absolute immunity because they were not appointed by the court and did not act under a court directive when making their recommendations. Judge Angela K. Paton, along with Judges Daniel J. Kiley and Brian Y. Furuya, delivered the opinion.
The court stated, "Quasi-judicial immunity requires a sufficient nexus not only between the activities performed and the judicial function, but also between the actor and the court."
This ruling clarifies that quasi-judicial immunity is not automatically granted to all professionals involved in judicial matters. The court emphasized that immunity applies only when there is a direct connection between the actions taken and the court's directives. The court also noted that the Grossman defendants did not have a formal appointment from the court, which is a crucial factor in determining immunity.
As a result, the court remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the Neeley family to continue their claims against Thomas and Grossman. The ruling sets a precedent regarding the limitations of immunity for therapists and other professionals involved in child welfare cases, potentially affecting how future cases are handled.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the Neeley family. It may influence how therapists and other professionals approach their roles in child custody and dependency cases, as they must now consider the legal implications of their recommendations more carefully. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining a clear connection to the court's directives to ensure legal protections are in place.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether the Grossman defendants will appeal this ruling. The case underscores the ongoing complexities of child welfare and custody issues, as well as the legal protections available to those involved in such sensitive matters. As the legal landscape evolves, this ruling may prompt further examination of the roles and responsibilities of therapists and other professionals working within the judicial system.