Child support; Fraud; Whether defendant-Challa (who is the Ottawa County Friend of the Court (FOC)) was shielded from liability on the basis of quasi-judicial, absolute immunity; Diehl v. Danuloff; Martin v. Children’s Aid Soc’y; The Friend of the Court Act (MCL 552.501 et seq.); Johnson v. Granholm (6th Cir.); Maiden v. Rozwood; Couch v. Schultz; Obstruction of justice; MCL 750.483a(5); Derderian v. Genesys Health Care Sys.; Claim that plaintiff was not notified of the recusal by the judges of the Ottawa Circuit Court, or of the trial court’s assignment by SCAO; Harmless error; MCR 2.613(A); Judicial bias; MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a) & (b); In re Contempt of Henry; Claim that summary disposition was premature because discovery had not been completed; LiParoto Constr., Inc. v. General Shale Brick, Inc.

As to plaintiff-Denhof’s complaint surrounding the three counts of fraud, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant-Challa (who is the Ottawa County FOC), considering that she was shielded from liability on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity. As to the claim of obstruction of justice, Denhof failed to address a ground given by the trial court in support of summary dismissal of that count, and failed to state a claim for obstruction of justice. Denhof’s civil case against Challa alleged multiple counts of fraud and a single count of obstruction of justice associated with statements made and actions taken by Challa relative to family division proceedings as to Denhof’s payment of child support to his ex-wife. He started the case from prison, where he is serving a 14 to 75-year term of imprisonment for convictions on three counts CSC I after sexually abusing his young daughter. The court held that a FOC’s statutorily-based role “entails fact-finding, providing information, performing evaluations, preparing reports, making recommendations, and aiding the family court in separating truth from falsity, all as intimately related and essential to the judicial process and decision-making by the family court.” Challa pleaded the affirmative defense of immunity as required by MCR 2.111(F)(3)(a). Further, there could be no reasonable dispute that she was “acting within the scope of her authority or official duties” as to her conduct in addressing the family court in the 4/12 hearing and as to any communications that she may have had with Denhof’s counsel concerning the FOC file. The court held that she was “shielded from liability in regard to the fraud claims on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity tied to her position, role, and duties as the county FOC.” Challa’s statements to the family court in 4/12 with which Denhof took offense were “relevant, pertinent, and material,” and Denhof did not argue otherwise. Rather, he alleged that Challa’s statements to the family court “constituted misrepresentations and were fraudulent. However, falsity or malice does not abrogate the immunity or privilege.” Thus, “quasi-judicial immunity arising from the judicial-proceedings privilege also shielded Challa from liability” as to the fraud claims. Affirmed.