Guardian Ad Litem to Stand Trial for Perjury

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Guardian Ad Litem to stand trial for perjury in Indiana child custody case

In Indiana, Del Anderson, a Guardian Ad Litem employed by Child Advocates, Inc., was sued by a father in a child custody dispute after Mr. Anderson testified in an 05 February 2013 child custody hearing that the father had caused the child’s school to go on “lock-down” following a threat by the father. The problem for Mr. Anderson is that the allegation was not true. 

Commissioner Shannon Logston is presiding over the case against Mr. Anderson. On 20 July 2015 Commissioner Logston ruled that Mr. Anderson’s Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that he has immunity from prosecution for his acts as a GAL is denied. In that ruling she cited that there exist a genuine dispute with respect to a material fact regarding the actions of defendant Anderson and whether those actions involved gross negligence so as to remove said actions from statutory immunity. 

At the summary judgment hearing Commissioner Logston curtly rebuked attorney Trent Gill’s facetious argument. Logston stated, “I don’t think lying to the court is protected by civil immunity.” Logston again responded to the argument saying, “I do not believe that in any way whatsoever someone is protected if they lie to a court . . . by civil immunity or common law immunity . . .” Responding to Gill’s repeated immunity assertion she said, “I don’t agree that that is covered by civil immunity.” Gill was apparently missing the substance of her declarations which she summarized as, “And I don’t believe that that is what is intended by immunity . . . is to defend someone from intentionally making untrue statements to a court . . . as part of their job.” Clearly Anderson’s perjured testimony, which amounts to gross negligence in the performance of his duties, removes his immunity provided by Indiana Code 31-17-6-8 and common law. The principal and superintendent of the school as well as the Pendleton Chief of Police all appeared at a subsequent hearing held 05 April 2013 to testify that no lock-down had been employed at or around the time that Mr. Anderson alleged. Additionally, all testified that the father had not presented any behaviour that caused concern. I also testified about the ease at which I was able to determine that no records existed of a lock-down or police action at the school. 


Please consider donating to support our work- Thank you!