In Holman v. County of Butte, ordered published May 15, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant county. The plaintiff alleges that when he was 14, his parents began a pattern of physical abuse against him. While the plaintiff was 14, the defendant county's welfare department received a report of suspected child abuse from the plaintiff's teacher, who was a mandated reporter under the California Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA). The teacher spoke to an intake social worker. The teacher then completed a written suspected child abuse report. The social worker completed a Structed Decision Making Hotline Tools form. The social worker decided the allegations did not meet the definitions of abuse, and accordingly did not check the boxes on the form regarding abuse. He "evaluated out" the referral. He documented his decision, and his supervisor approved it. Because the referral was "evaluated out," the social worker did not cross-report the allegation to local law enforcement. The plaintiff contended the abuse continued for two years. The plaintiff brought two causes of action under Government Code section 815.6 for violation of mandatory duty. The first cause of action alleged that the Ccounty negligently failed to perform a mandatory duty under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 328 and 16504 to evaluate and investigate the “substantiated” report of child abuse. The second alleged that the county breached a mandatory duty under Penal Code section 11166, subdivision (j), by failing to cross-report the allegations of abuse to local law enforcement and the district attorney’s office. The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding that the social worker fulfilled his ministerial duties under CANRA, and was exercising his discretion when he decided to "evaluate out" the child abuse report; and that his decision was therefore protected by discretionary immunity.
The appellate court reversed summary judgment as to the second cause of action. Because the county moved for summary judgment and summary adjudication, the county had to defeat both causes of action to prevail. In B.H. v. County of San Bernardino, the California Supreme Court ruled that subdivision (k) of Penal Code section 11166, which applies to law enforcement agencies, imposed a mandatory and ministerial duty on a sheriff's department to cross-report child abuse allegations made to a 911 operator to a child welfare agency. The B.H. court further held that the determination of whether a reported incident involves child abuse or neglect is a mandatory, not a discretionary function; and that use of judgment to determine whether a report involves child abuse or neglect does not involve the exercise of discretion. By the same reasoning, subdivision (j) of section 11166, which deals with cross-reporting by county welfare agencies, imposed a mandatory duty on the county agency here to cross-report the report of abuse to law enforcement. Even if social workers are required to cross-report only those allegations determined to meet the definitions of abuse or neglect, there is a triable issue of fact in this case as to whether the county violated a mandatory duty by failing to cross-report the referral. Because a triable issue existed as to the second cause of action, the court did not have to decide whether the court correctly ruled on the first cause of action.
Comments