In B.H. v. County of San Bernardino, published November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a court of appeal's decision that a sheriff's department and the investigating sheriff's deputy owed no mandatory duty to a child to report a 911 call and the deputy's subsequent investigation to the county's child welfare agency. A non-mandatory reporter called 911 and told the operator she suspected that the two-year-old plaintiff was being abused. The operator dispatched the information to the sheriff's department, and requested that an officer look into the matter. The deputy went to the home, examined the child, and did not conclude that abuse had occurred. Later, the child was severely injured. The injuries were likely caused by shaken-baby syndrome. The plaintiff alleged that Penal Code section 11166, part of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, imposed a mandatory duty upon the sheriff's department (Gov. Code, ยง 815.6) and upon the deputy (for which the sheriff's department would be vicariously liable under Government Code section 815.2) to cross-report the 911 call and the results of the investigation to the child welfare agency.
The Supreme Court ruled that the sheriff's department did have a mandatory duty to cross-report the 911 call. Subdivision (k) of Penal Code section 11166 imposes a mandatory duty to cross-report to the county welfare or probation department every known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect reported to it that is alleged to have occurred as a result of the action of a person responsible for the child's welfare. The 911 call was an allegation of child abuse. The court examined the statute's language, its legislative history, and its purpose, and concluded that the statute imposes a ministerial duty to cross-report allegations of child report that a law enforcement agency receives, such as a 911 call. The statute therefore imposes a mandatory duty, and violation can give rise to a cause of action under Government Code section 815.6.
The court further concluded, however, that an officer investigating a report of alleged child abuse does not owe a mandatory duty to cross-report the results of her investigation. If the initial allegations the agency receives are required to be cross-reported, there should be no mandatory requirement to cross-report the results of the investigation. Further, the statutory provision for reporting investigation results, subdivision (a) of section 11166, only applies when a mandated reporter knows of or observes a child whom the reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. Subdivision (a) therefore requires a degree of discretion that subdivision (k) does not.
Comments