The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing the child in the deemed custody of the respondent father, with parenting time for the respondent mother.
The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care, and objected to the admissibility of unsworn reports from the child's treating psychologist.
The court held that the psychologist was a participant expert whose unsworn reports were admissible on a summary judgment motion.
Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion, placing the child in the father's custody with decision-making responsibility, and ordered parenting time for the mother.
