Gitlin Law Firm 2010 Illinois Divorce and Paternity Case and ...

state court judge if the child representative has acted inappropriately. While in theory
the process should not be adversarial because all parties in a custody proceeding
should be concerned with the best interests of the child, in practice these proceedings
are often adversarial because the parties disagree as to what those interests are. These
factors show that absolute immunity is appropriate for child representatives involved
in custody determinations." Golden, 2005 WL 2897397, at *10.
Duncan v. Peterson – False Light Invasion of Privacy Claim Affirmed
Duncan v. Brevin Peterson and the Moody Church, (Second Dist., December 30, 2010)
I review this case because occasionally in divorce proceedings one may threaten or publish material
to the public that is false and may damage an individual. A cause of action exists: “False Light
Invasion of Privacy.”
The question was whether the dissemination of the letters to individual members of a church
constituted false light invasion of privacy. It was ruled that the general subject matter of the dispute
did not involve internal church matters and accordingly the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not
apply. A contention was that because the contents of the letter to the church members contained
religious opinions and could not be proved false, no false-light-invasion-of-privacy claim can be
sustained, no matter how derogatory the contents of the letters might be. The appellate court
commented that the enclosure to the letter:
stated all accusations contained within it as fact, not as opinion. The letter stated,
"You have had an improper relationship with a divorced single woman," "Your
decision to file a divorce petition against your wife," "Your misuse of alcohol," and
"Your misuse of personal funds ." Moreover, some of these factual allegations were
falsehoods, such as that plaintiff filed a divorce petition against his wife, and the
other allegations were stated without any investigation, such as that plaintiff misused
alcohol and personal funds. As the April 23, 2000, letter was enclosed with the May
9, 2000, letter, it was part of the publication serving as the basis for the
false-light-invasion-of-privacy claim. Because the April 23, 2000, enclosure
contained false of fact, this argument fails. See Duncan, 359 Ill. App. 3d. at 1037-38
(May 9, 2000, letter included April 23, 2000, letter and May 5, 2000, letter as
enclosures).
The next issue was conditional privilege. The fair report privilege provides that the:
“'publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an official action
or proceeding or of a meeting open to the public that deals with a matter of public
concern is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fair abridgement of
the occurrence reported.' " Solaia Technology, 221 Ill. 2d at 585, quoting
Restatement (Second) of Torts §611 (1977). There are two requirements to establish
the privilege: (1) the report must be of an official proceeding; and (2) the report must
be complete and accurate or a fair abridgement of the official proceeding.
Gitlin Law Firm, P.C.
Page 38 of 49
www.GitlinLawFirm.com