Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Civil Action Against Lawyer, Therapists in Heated Child Custody Dispute Is SLAPP
Opinion Says Attempt to Hold Court-Appointed Professionals Liable for ‘Decisions’ Over Visitation Was Actually Effort to Assert Claims Based on Protected Communications
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday that an anti-SLAPP motion was properly granted to court-appointed lawyers and therapists, who were sued by a mother claiming that their “decision” to restrict her supervision of her children in custody proceedings was maliciously made, finding that the claims lacked merit and the professionals’ conclusions as to what was best for the minors amounted to protected petitioning activity.
California’s anti-SLAPP statute, codified at Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, provides:
“A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
At issue is subdivisions (e)(1) and (2), which specify that protected petitioning activities include “any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law” and “any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law.”
In an unpublished opinion, written by Acting Presiding Justice Eileen C. Moore and joined in by Justices Joanne Motoike and Martha K. Gooding, the court found that the mother’s attempt to characterize the conduct at issue as “decisions” made rather than communications relating to a court proceeding assumes that the professionals had the power of a “dictator” to impose their will when all they were empowered to do was convey recommendations.
Heated Custody Dispute
After the dissolution of their marriage in 2014, parents Monique Snieders and Ryan Boudreau became embattled in a heated custody dispute involving their two minor children, G.B. and L.B., Sneider was initially granted custody after claims that her ex-husband had fired a gun in the presence of the children were substantiated by the Orange County Social Services Agency.
Later, the children were returned to their father’s care during the pendency of the custody proceedings after G.B. told a camp counselor that scratches on her arm were caused by her mother, a charge Snieders disputes. Orange Superior Court Judge Daphne Sykes appointed Loni Klein, an attorney with the Orange County-based A Center for Children & Family Law, to serve as independent counsel for the children.
In September 2020, Snieders signed a stipulation regarding family therapy, which said that psychologist Kristin Bachman would provide family therapy to the family, and Christina Appleton, a clinician who had previously treated G.B., would provide individual therapy to the children.
The ensuing order stated it was ‘‘temporary…pending further Order of the Court” and provided that Snieders’ parenting time would be professionally monitored until Bachman and Klein recommend that supervision is no longer necessary, the parties stipulated otherwise, or the court so orders. Snieders complains she was induced to sign the agreement by false promises by Klein that the supervision would only last a short period.
Operative Complaint Filed
On Jan. 31, 2022, while the custody case was still pending, Snieders filed the operative complaint, asserting claims for fraudulent inducement as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Klein, her firm, and partners Sheryl L. Edgar and Tisha Lene Harman. On behalf of her children, Sneiders also filed malpractice causes of action against the attorney defendants.
She filed similar claims, on behalf of herself and her children, against Bachman and Appleton.
After each defendant filed anti-SLAPP motions seeking to dismiss the entire complaint, Orange Superior Court Judge Richard Y. Lee granted the motion as to all of Snieders’ individual claims. He denied the motion as to the claims brought on behalf of the children, saying:
“While Klein’s communicative acts and litigation activity including negotiating and entering into the Stipulation, and asserting her opinion or recommendation as to visitation and parenting time is protected activity, this is incidental…to the claim that Klein’s ‘decision’ as to visitation…was not the act of a reasonable attorney….Consequently, the Minor Children’s causes of action are not based on, and do not arise from petitioning activity protected under the anti-SLAPP statute….”
Yesterday’s opinion affirmed the order and the ensuing judgment.
Context is Key
Moore noted that Klein, Bachman, and Appleton were appointed by the court and said “[t]his context is a key” to analyzing whether the conduct at issue in the complaint is protected. As to the claims against the attorneys, she wrote:
“The key claim offered by Snieders is that Klein’s ‘decisions’ were the basis of her complaint, specifically the decision to ‘deprive’ Snieders of ‘anything but supervised visits….” Those ‘decisions,’ however, were all in the context of her role as counsel for the minor children. Moreover, a ‘decision’ is meaningless until it is communicated to someone.”
She continued:
“All of these litigation activities demonstrate that Klein’s actions were not those of a dictator, to whom all decision-making power about custody was improperly delegated….Ultimately, decisions were made by the court, not Klein….Klein’s ‘decisions,’ by their very nature, required communicative acts, and those acts constituted petitioning activity within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute.”
Turning to the causes of action asserted against the therapists, Moore remarked:
“For the same reasons as discussed…with respect to Klein, we conclude the role of the therapists was defined and constrained by the court order appointing them. Further, any ‘decisions’ they are alleged to have made cannot be separated from their communicative conduct in the context of the family law case.”
Having found that the conduct at issue was protected, the justice turned to whether the Snieders had established a probability of prevailing on her claims. The jurist commented that “[b]ecause we have already rejected Snieders’ argument that her complaint was based on ‘decisions’ rather than communications,” she concluded that “all of the claims” against the attorneys and the therapists are based on actions taken in connection with the family law case.
As a result, she declared that “the litigation privilege applies” and prevents Snieders’ success on the merits.
The case is Snieders v. A Center for Children & Family Law, G062880.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company