Special Motion To Strike Denied In Defamation Action.

The court appointed a reunification counselor in a custody dispute. The counselor concluded the father was emotionally and psychologically abusing the child by indoctrinating him to believe his mother was evil and never loved him and that the mother had kidnapped the child’s younger brother and was holding him hostage. The court removed the child from the father’s home and issued a domestic violence restraining order preventing the father from contacting the two children or the mother. In a defamation lawsuit, the counselor alleges the father made a number of defamatory statements online and over the radio following the issuance of the reunification report and removal of the child from the father’s physical custody. One of these statements, posted on CNN’s iReport Website, accused the counselor of “criminal fraud and modern day slavery using Parental Alienation SCAM, enslavement of children for $$$$$$ in California.” The posting continued: “Corrupt Criminals like [the counselor] and their good-ol-network are today’s ‘modern slave traders’ trading ‘children’ with vindictive retribution and for money.” The posting also accused the counselor of “child abuse” and “financial extortion.” In another statement, made during an interview with a Sacramento area radio station, the father claimed the counselor “extorted money” from him. The father further asserted: “[The counselor] does not have any license to practice psychology in California. She’s got a diploma from some online mill. And on top of it, she makes DSM-[IV] diagnoses; she prescribed Benzodiazepine for my son. A person who is not even a psychologist or psychiatrist prescribing medication in California? That’s illegal.”

The father filed a motion to strike the defamation action under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, [the anti-SLAPP statute], which the trial court denied. The appellate court noted the counselor conceded that as a limited purpose public figure, in order to prevail on the merits, she must demonstrate not only the falsity of the statements at issue, but also that they were published with actual malice. The appellate court concluded the counselor demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits in the defamation lawsuit and affirmed the order denying the special motion to strike. Burrill v. Nair  (Cal. App. Third Dist.; June 20, 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 357, [158 Cal.Rptr.3d 332].