Sylvia Ernst, in No. 93-1929 v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County Carol Schravazande Arden Olson Wayne Stevenson Rita Borzillo the Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Sylvia Ernst, Administrator of the Estate of Susanne Ernst, for Susanne Ernst. (Amended as Per the Court's 5/31/96 Order). Sylvia Ernst v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County Carol Schravazande Arden Olson, Wayne Stevenson Rita Borzillo the Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Sylvia Ernst, Administrator of the Estate of Susanne Ernst, for Susanne Ernst. Rita K. Borzillo, in No. 93-1930. (Amended as Per the Court's 5/31/96 Order). Sylvia Ernst v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County Carol Shravazande Arden Olson, Wayne Stevenson Rita Borzillo the Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Sylvia Ernst, Administrator of the Estate of Susanne Ernst, for Susanne Ernst. Rita K. Borzillo, Esq., (Amended as Per the Court's 5/31/96 Order)

A grandmother alleges in this civil rights action that she was deprived of the custody of her granddaughter for five years in violation of rights secured by the Constitution. The defendants are Chester County Children & Youth Services ("CYS"), individual CYS caseworkers, and an attorney retained by CYS to represent it in the judicial proceedings that transferred custody to the state. We are called upon to decide whether and to what extent child welfare workers and attorneys who represent child welfare agencies are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in connection with dependency proceedings in state court. This is an issue of first impression in this circuit. Like the other courts of appeals that have addressed the issue, we hold that child welfare workers and attorneys who prosecute dependency proceedings on behalf of the state are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for all of their actions in preparing for and prosecuting such dependency proceedings.

Sylvia Ernst ("Ernst") was the sole guardian of her minor granddaughter Susanne from infancy until the child was nine years old.2 At about that time, during the 1987-88 school year, a number of people in the Downingtown, Pennsylvania area where Ernst and Susanne lived became concerned about Susanne's well-being. A mover who had moved Ernst and Susanne into an apartment in Downingtown contacted police and expressed concern that there was something wrong in the relationship between Ernst and Susanne. He reported that Susanne looked unwell and appeared too young to be Ernst's daughter.

The Downingtown police conducted an investigation and learned that the Family Court of Nassau County, New York, had issued warrants for the arrest of Ernst and her daughter for child neglect and that a petition for custody of Susanne had been filed in 1981 but never served on Ernst. Nassau County officials informed the Downingtown police that the warrants had been vacated and the petition for custody of Susanne had been withdrawn. The police informed a CYS employee of its investigation and of the status of the warrants, but the CYS personnel responsible for the decision to seek custody of Susanne were apparently unaware at the time of their decision that the Nassau County warrants had been withdrawn.

School officials at several schools Susanne attended became concerned about Susanne's frequent tardiness, poor attendance, and inability to separate from Ernst at the start of the school day. The days would often begin with a scene outside Susanne's classroom during which Susanne would cry and scream and refuse to let go of her grandmother. On May 3, 1988, after another morning tantrum, officials at the East Ward School in Downingtown contacted CYS and requested immediate intervention. CYS believed Susanne's attachment to Ernst was sufficiently extreme to be unhealthy and filed a petition that same day seeking an adjudication of dependency3 and emergency custody of Susanne. After an immediate detention hearing, Judge Stively of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas found that a prima facie case of dependency had been presented, and ordered Susanne placed in a psychiatric institution for a complete evaluation.

At a subsequent hearing on May 18, 1988, the parties stipulated to an adjudication of dependency, which resulted in temporary legal custody remaining with CYS. The stipulation provided that CYS's goal was the reunification of the family and that Ernst could receive counseling and treatment at the institution at which Susanne was being treated.

CYS retained custody of Susanne for the next five years. During that time, Ernst and CYS waged an intense legal battle over Susanne's dependency status and custody. They also developed an extremely contentious relationship. CYS caseworkers found Ernst to be uncooperative, antagonizing, and unwilling to acknowledge her parenting problems. They also complained that she frequently made negative comments about CYS and Susanne's foster families during visits with Susanne. As CYS caseworkers became increasingly frustrated with Ernst, they sought and obtained restrictions on her visits with Susanne. Ultimately, with the approval of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, they changed CYS's goal for Susanne from family reunification to long-term foster placement. Meanwhile, Susanne occupied eight different placements at various foster homes and institutions. Ultimately, her emotional and intellectual development deteriorated significantly.

Finally, in April 1993, a new judge assigned to review Susanne's placement recognized that "[t]he adversarial air of the proceeding [concerning Susanne's dependency] ... at times ... captured the focus of many of those involved in this case instead of focusing on Susanne." Juvenile No. 83 CS 88, Order of April 26, 1993, Op. at 2. Concluding that "[w]e have come to the point where state intervention in Susanne's life is now doing more harm than good," the court ordered that physical custody of Susanne be returned to Ernst, with legal custody remaining with CYS. Ernst was granted legal custody on November 17, 1993.

During the pendency of the state court proceedings, Ernst filed this action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CYS, various CYS caseworkers who were involved in Susanne's case (the "CYS defendants"), three officials from the Downingtown Area School District, and Rita Borzillo, a private attorney who represented CYS throughout Susanne's dependency proceedings. Ernst's complaint alleged (1) violation of procedural and substantive due process by all defendants for their improper "seizure" of Susanne; (2) violation of substantive due process by CYS, the CYS defendants, and Borzillo for the imposition of restrictions on visitation and for the recommendation of long-term placement instead of reunification; (3) violations of procedural due process in the course and conduct of state court proceedings; and (4) violation of the First Amendment by the Pennsylvania statute that presumptively closes juvenile dependency proceedings to the public. The district court joined the Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to defend the First Amendment claim.

The district court granted summary judgment to the Downingtown School officials on statute of limitations grounds, and to all defendants on all claims alleging procedural due process violations before May 24, 1991 on the ground that those claims had been fully and fairly litigated in state court. The court granted partial summary judgment to the CYS defendants and Borzillo, ruling that they were entitled to absolute immunity "insofar as they acted in their prosecutorial capacity of filing petitions and making recommendations to the court." The court held that the CYS defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity, however, for actions taken in their capacities as social workers formulating recommendations to be made to the court. The court further held that Borzillo was not entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in an "extra-prosecutorial" capacity.

A bench trial ensued on the claims that survived summary judgment. After the trial, the court granted judgment to CYS, the CYS defendants, and the Judiciary of Pennsylvania. Although the court criticized the CYS defendants for flawed social work practice and inability "to submerge their personal views in dealing with a difficult woman" and focus on Susanne's welfare, Ernst v. Chester County Children & Youth Servs., No. CIV.A. 91-3735, 1993 WL 343375, at * 23 (E.D.Pa. Sept.3, 1993), it ultimately concluded that the CYS defendants' actions "were not so devoid of professional judgment or so clearly outrageous as to impose liability for constitutional violations." Id. The court held that CYS was not liable for any violations by the CYS defendants or Borzillo because Ernst had not shown that the actions were done by an official with policy-making authority or pursuant to a "policy" or "custom" of CYS. Finally, the district court held that Ernst lacked standing to bring her First Amendment challenge to Pennsylvania's juvenile court closure provision because she could not raise the right of the "third-party" public and press to access to the courts.

On the other hand, the court granted judgment in favor of Ernst against Borzillo. The court held that Borzillo, who was a state actor for purposes of § 1983 while she represented CYS, violated Ernst's substantive due process rights when she sought appellate review of an order granting Ernst an unsupervised visit with Susanne. The court found that Borzillo challenged the order primarily out of "animosity and anger at Ernst's small victory" in securing permission for an unsupervised visit. Id. at * 25. Nevertheless, the court found that the harm suffered by Ernst as a result of Borzillo's actions was de minimis, consisting only of the difference between the value of the unsupervised visit ordered and the supervised visit Ernst actually had with Susanne, and awarded only nominal damages and attorneys' fees.

Ernst timely appealed the district court's judgments against her on the substantive due process and First Amendment claims, and Borzillo cross-appealed. We will affirm the judgments against Ernst in favor of the CYS defendants, albeit on the alternative ground that the CYS defendants are absolutely immune for all of their actions in preparing for and prosecuting Susanne's dependency proceedings. We will also affirm the judgments in favor of CYS and the Judiciary of Pennsylvania. However, we will reverse the judgment against Borzillo on the ground that she is entitled to absolute immunity for the actions for which she was held liable by the district court.

Because the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we must first satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and cross-appeal.

The CYS defendants contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ernst's suit under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal courts from exercising "subject matter jurisdiction to review final adjudications of a state's highest court or to evaluate constitutional claims that are 'inextricably intertwined with the state court's [decision] in a judicial proceeding.' " FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (quoting Blake v. Papadakos, 953 F.2d 68, 71 (3d Cir.1992) (alteration in original); District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1315-16 n. 16, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)). According to the CYS defendants, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the district court from hearing Ernst's § 1983 claims because to decide those claims required the court to determine whether the state courts correctly adjudicated Susanne a dependent. We disagree, and find Rooker-Feldman inapplicable here.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based on the statutory provision that grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the decisions of the highest state courts for compliance with the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Because this jurisdiction is reserved exclusively to the Supreme Court, it is improper for federal district courts to exercise jurisdiction over a case that is the functional equivalent of an appeal from a state court judgment. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). As this court recently explained:

When a plaintiff seeks to litigate a claim in a federal court, the existence of a state court judgment in another case bars the federal proceeding under Rooker-Feldman only when entertaining the federal court claim would be the equivalent of an appellate review of that order. For that reason, Rooker-Feldman applies only when in order to grant the federal plaintiff the relief sought, the federal court must determine that the state court judgment was erroneously entered or must take action that would render that judgment ineffectual.

FOCUS, 75 F.3d at 840 (citations omitted). Those circumstances are not present here.

Although Ernst's Third Amended Complaint sought her appointment as Susanne's legal guardian, which was the relief that she had been unable to obtain in the state courts, that portion of the complaint was mooted when the state court returned Susanne to Ernst's custody. Thus, the district court was left to decide only Ernst's § 1983 claims for damages, which were grounded primarily in her allegations that the defendants violated her right to substantive due process when they formulated and made recommendations to the state court regarding Susanne's dependency. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not preclude the district court from deciding those claims because a ruling that the defendants violated Ernst's right to substantive due process by making recommendations to the state court out of malice or personal bias would not have required the court to find that the state court judgments made on the basis of those recommendations were erroneous.

Moreover, it is clear that deciding the substantive due process claims did not involve federal court review of a state court decision because Ernst's substantive due process claims were never decided by the state court. Although Ernst mentioned her concerns about bias on the part of the CYS defendants during the dependency proceedings, she did not articulate those concerns in constitutional due process terms. Neither did--or could--the state court base any decision regarding Susanne's dependency on a determination that Ernst's claims of bias or improper motive were invalid. Cf. Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir.1992) (holding that a party cannot escape Rooker-Feldman by raising a new constitutional theory in federal court unless the party lacked a realistic opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the constitutional claim in the state court proceeding); Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1433 (3d Cir.1989). A dependency adjudication involves a determination that a child is without proper parental care or control, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302; In the Interest of J.M., 438 Pa.Super. 409, 652 A.2d 877, 880 (1995), and subsequent decisions regarding custody and placement are made on the basis of the best interests of the child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351; In the Interest of Laura Sweeney, 393 Pa.Super. 437, 574 A.2d 690, 691 (1990). Neither an adjudication of dependency nor a determination of the appropriate disposition of a dependent child is based on the intentions or states of mind of the party seeking the dependency adjudication. Therefore, a finding that the CYS defendants violated Ernst's right to substantive due process would not have involved the invalidation of any conclusion or judgment reached by the state court.4 Accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not preclude the court from exercising jurisdiction over Ernst's substantive due process claims against the CYS defendants. We have jurisdiction over the appeal therefrom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Ernst argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Borzillo's cross-appeal because Borzillo did not file a timely notice of appeal from the district court's immediately appealable interlocutory denial of her motion for summary judgment on the ground of absolute immunity.5 Instead, she waited and appealed from the final judgment against her. We reject Ernst's argument because we hold that an interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on immunity grounds, although permitted, is not obligatory.

This court has not yet addressed the specific issue of whether a party that fails to file an appeal within 30 days after entry of an immediately appealable interlocutory order denying summary judgment on immunity grounds forfeits the right to challenge that denial on appeal from the final judgment. However, we have adopted the general rule that "[i]f matters are adjudged by an interlocutory decree that is subject to immediate appeal, and no appeal is taken, they are not foreclosed, but are subject to review on appeal from the final judgment," 9 Moore's Federal Practice § 110.18, at 194 (1996); id. at 195 n. 2 (citing cases); see also 15A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3911, at 359 & n. 78 (citing cases), in another context. Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. George, 105 F.2d 697, 699 (3d Cir.1939) (holding that interlocutory appeal from interlocutory injunction is permissive rather than mandatory, and injunction thus may be challenged on appeal from either the interlocutory order or the final judgment). The Seventh Circuit has described the rationale for the general rule:

Although a party has a right to take an immediate appeal, there is no obligation to do so.... A rule that required people to appeal from potentially "final" decisions not embodied in separate documents [within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 58] would lead to a blizzard of protective appeals as litigants tried to ensure their rights to review; many times the rule would lead to pointless forfeitures as litigants overlooked the possibility that a particular order might be characterized as a "final decision."

Exchange Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. Daniels, 763 F.2d 286, 290 (7th Cir.1985) (emphasis in original). Moreover, "[m]aking interlocutory appeals ... mandatory would turn the policy against piecemeal appeals on its head." Hunter v. Department of Air Force Agency, 846 F.2d 1314, 1316 (11th Cir.1988) (quoting In re Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 669 F.2d 228, 236 (5th Cir.1982)).

We can see no meaningful distinction between interlocutory orders denying summary judgment on immunity grounds and other appealable interlocutory orders. Accordingly, we think it appropriate to extend the general rule to interlocutory orders denying summary judgment on immunity grounds. See McIntosh v. Weinberger, 810 F.2d 1411, 1431 n. 7 (8th Cir.1987) (applying general rule to orders denying summary judgment on immunity grounds because the interest in protecting public officials from monetary liability for official acts survives even after a trial has been held). Therefore, Borzillo did not forfeit her right to appeal the district court's denial of her motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds by waiting to file a notice of appeal until after entry of a final judgment against her. We thus have jurisdiction to consider the immunity issue raised in her cross-appeal.

Ernst challenges the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to the CYS defendants based on absolute immunity "insofar as they acted in their prosecutorial capacity of filing petitions and making recommendations to the court." Order of Jan. 27, 1993. She contends that the CYS defendants cannot claim entitlement to immunity from suit under § 1983 because child welfare workers employed by the state did not exist, and thus enjoyed no immunity from suit at common law, in 1871 when § 1983 was enacted. Although we recognize that state-employed social workers enjoyed no common law immunity from suit in 1871, we nonetheless hold that the CYS defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in petitioning and in formulating and making recommendations to the state court because those actions are analogous to functions performed by state prosecutors, who were immune from suit at common law.

Section 1983 provides that "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). Despite its broad language, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision did not abolish long-standing common law immunities from civil suits. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 484, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1938, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217-18, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967)); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 418, 96 S.Ct. 984, 989, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Instead, courts must determine whether a particular governmental official is entitled to immunity according to the following analysis:[The] initial inquiry is whether [the] official claiming immunity under § 1983 can point to a common-law counterpart to the privilege he asserts. If "an official was accorded immunity from tort actions at common law when the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1871, the Court next considers whether § 1983's history or purposes nonetheless counsel against recognizing the same immunity in § 1983 actions."

Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 340, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1095, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (quoting Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 2824-25, 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984)). Courts "look to the common law and other history for guidance because [their] role is 'not to make a freewheeling policy choice,' but rather to discern Congress' likely intent in enacting § 1983." Burns, 500 U.S. at 493, 111 S.Ct. at 1943 (quoting Malley, 475 U.S. at 342, 106 S.Ct. at 1096-97).

The fact that a particular public official did not enjoy absolute immunity at common law is not, however, determinative of the absolute immunity issue. Where the official claiming immunity occupies a governmental position that did not exist at common law, he may still be entitled to immunity if he performs official functions that are analogous to functions performed by those who were immune at common law. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978) (holding that officials who perform quasi-judicial and quasi-prosecutorial functions in administrative agency adjudications are entitled to the same immunities afforded to judges and prosecutors at common law); see also Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224, 108 S.Ct. 538, 542-43, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988) ("Running through our cases, with fair consistency, is a 'functional' approach to immunity questions other than those that have been decided by express constitutional or statutory enactment. Under that approach, we examine the nature of the functions with which a particular official or class of officials has been lawfully entrusted, and we seek to evaluate the effect that exposure to particular forms of liability would likely have on the appropriate exercise of those functions."). It is therefore necessary for us to review the functions performed by officials to whom absolute immunity has been accorded in order to determine if child welfare workers perform analogous functions.

Under its historical and functional approach, the Supreme Court has held that certain officials "functioning as integral parts of the judicial process" are absolutely immune from civil suits under § 1983. McArdle v. Tronetti, 961 F.2d 1083, 1084 (3d Cir.1992). For example, the Court has declared that judges, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), prosecutors, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), and witnesses, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), are entitled to absolute immunity when they perform judicial or quasi-judicial acts that are integral parts of the judicial process.

In Imbler v. Pachtman, the Court held that prosecutors were absolutely immune at common law from civil liability for malicious prosecution and that public policy considerations countenanced a similar absolute immunity from suits under § 1983. 424 U.S. at 424, 96 S.Ct. at 992. The relevant public policy considerations were numerous. First, a prosecutor's exercise of his independent judgment would likely be compromised if he were threatened with suits for damages for his actions in initiating and prosecuting criminal cases in court. Id. at 424-25, 96 S.Ct. at 992-93. Such suits "could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State's advocate." Id. at 425, 96 S.Ct. at 992. Second, the prosecutor's energy would be diverted from his official duties if he were forced to defend himself against § 1983 actions. Id. Third, defending against § 1983 actions likely would be particularly difficult for a prosecutor:

[T]he honest prosecutor would face greater difficulty in meeting the standards of qualified immunity than other executive or administrative officials. Frequently acting under serious constraints of time and even information, a prosecutor inevitably makes many decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional deprivation. Defending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials.

Id. at 425-26, 96 S.Ct. at 992-93. Fourth, failure to afford absolute immunity to prosecutors might undermine the functioning of the criminal justice system because it might lead prosecutors concerned about personal liability not to tender evidence that, while relevant, might conceivably turn out to be fabricated by the witness. Id. at 426, 96 S.Ct. at 993. Fifth, failure to afford absolute immunity might weaken the fairness of the criminal justice system by clouding postconviction review with "the subconscious knowledge that a post-trial decision in favor of the accused might result in the prosecutor's being called upon to respond in damages for his error or mistaken judgment." Id. at 427, 96 S.Ct. at 993. Finally, the court noted that absolute immunity for prosecutors would not leave the public without any means to punish or deter unconstitutional conduct because the availability of both judicial review and professional disciplinary procedures would protect the public and punish the errant prosecutor. Id. at 429, 96 S.Ct. at 994. Thus, the Court concluded that "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983." Id. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 995.

In Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991), and Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993), the Court clarified the scope of a prosecutor's absolute immunity from suit under § 1983. In Burns, the Court held that a prosecutor was absolutely immune from liability for his presentation of evidence in a probable cause hearing but was not absolutely immune for the provision of legal advice to police officers investigating a case. Emphasizing its "functional approach" to immunity under § 1983, the Court reiterated that absolute immunity extends only to prosecutorial activities that are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Burns, 500 U.S. at 493, 111 S.Ct. at 1943 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. at 994-95). Such activities include both the initiation and prosecution of the State's case and certain "actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution" but nonetheless integral to the judicial prosecution of the case. Id. at 491, 111 S.Ct. at 1941-42 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. at 995-96 n. 33).

In Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, the Court again declared that "the Imbler approach focuses on the conduct for which immunity is claimed," 509 U.S. at 271-72, 113 S.Ct. at 2615 (emphasis added), and the "functional tie" between that conduct and the judicial process in a criminal case. Id. at 277-78, 113 S.Ct. at 2617-18. It distinguished between a prosecutor's functioning as an "advocate" in judicial proceedings on behalf of the State, which is entitled to immunity, and as an investigator searching for clues that might lead to an arrest, which is not entitled to absolute immunity.

Applying the principles set forth in Butz, Imbler, and their progeny to the instant case, we hold that the CYS defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings. Their immunity is broad enough to include the formulation and presentation of recommendat