Can I argue against absolute judicial immunity for CPS Hearing Officers?

This is about Juvenile Dependency Court "Judges": Regarding judicial immunity, does that apply to Commissioners as well? AND also, I know that Judges have absolute immunity which protects them from suits arising from acts or decisions made while performing judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and/or adjudicative functions. Would it be possible to raise a reasonable argument in opposition to this absolute immunity along the lines of this: Assuming I can show enough evidence and testimony to prove that CPS "Judges" are actually "Hearing Officers" who are literally hired by the County to play a theatrical role of a "Judge" and does not actually perform any judicial or administrative acts or duties and that this Hearing Officer and his court cohorts, literally pretend that this person is making decisions and "rulings" but they are not. CPS calls every shot, decides everything, in advance and directs the Hearing Officer to collaborate with the cohorts as how to act it out to look like actual legal court proceedings and that these "decisions" are made after hearing and examining all the evidence and witness testimony. The Hearing Officers are given a script on how to exactly conduct the show (see Judge's Bench guide 100). A CPS social worker once told a friend, "The Judge's "orders" are just recommendations or "authorizations", he doesn't "order" us to do anything." I can also argue and show, just from our hearing transcripts, that CPS is large and in charge. I believe that the Juvenile Dependency "Court" hearings are conducted in rented rooms at the courthouse to give the appearance of traditional "fair and just" proceedings. I know that there are State Juvenile Dependency Court Rules and that there are Welfare & Institution Codes however, these statutes are only applied when used against parents. So, if the "Judge" or Hearing Officer is not actually performing judicial acts or duties but rather being paid and told what to say.