Sandra Jean Widoff v. Pamela G. Weins and Daniel Saint, III

Sandra Jean Widoff (“Mother”) appeals from the superior
court’s dismissal of her complaint, which alleged that Pamela G.
Wiens (“Wiens”) and Daniel Saint, III (“Saint”) (together,
“Defendants”) failed to adequately perform their duties as guardians ad litem in violation of Mother’s civil rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV,
Section 1; and the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 4. We
affirm without reaching the merits of Mother’s claims because
Defendants are absolutely immune from those claims.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter arose out of an emergency motion for custody
filed by Mother’s former husband, Marc W. Widoff (“Father”). In
that motion, Father asked for custody of his then nine-year-old
daughter, Xanadu, alleging that Mother’s live-in boyfriend (“TJS”)
engaged in sexually deviant behavior in front of Xanadu’s minor
sibling and that TJS operated a pornography business out of
Mother’s home.

By order dated August 18, 1998, the trial court appointed
Saint as guardian ad litem for Xanadu and authorized him “to visit
both homes and to interview both parties” prior to the evidentiary
hearing. Saint arranged for Wiens, an attorney who, according to
Saint, was authorized to serve as guardian ad litem in domestic
relations matters, to conduct some or most of the investigation and
to appear at the evidentiary hearing as Xanadu’s guardian ad litem.
Saint claims that he requested Wiens’ assistance due to time
constraints and that such assistance was permitted under his
contract with Maricopa County. Saint further claims that, although
he delegated much of the responsibility to Wiens, he still participated in the investigatory process. Mother counters that
the trial court never appointed Wiens to act as guardian ad litem
and that Saint improperly assigned the case to her. Also, Mother
asserts that neither Saint nor Wiens visited her home to interview
her, although ordered to do so by the trial court.

Defendants respond that they attempted to locate Mother’s
address and phone number several times to no avail. However,
Defendants were able to locate Father and arrange for Father and
Xanadu to be interviewed prior to the evidentiary hearing. Based
on these interviews, as well as police confirmation that TJS was a
convicted sex offender and had recently been charged with indecent
exposure, Wiens recommended that custody of Xanadu remain with
Father and that Mother’s visitation be supervised. Wiens presented
this recommendation at an August 24, 1998 evidentiary hearing.

On September 14, 1998, the trial court found that Mother
was deeply committed to TJS and that TJS’s status as a registered
sex offender, his criminal convictions (for indecent exposure,
felony forgery, misdemeanor theft, trespass, and possession of a
controlled substance), his pending charges of indecent exposure,
and his production of pornographic material out of Mother’s home
threatened the safety of Xanadu. The trial court therefore
affirmed an earlier order granting emergency custody to Father and
ordered Mother to have only supervised visits with Xanadu.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Because absolute immunity shields Defendants from
Mother’s claims, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mother’s complaint and the court’s denial of Mother’s motion for
reconsideration.

Unavailable

Unavailable

None