The California Court of Appeal has issued a groundbreaking ruling in D.G. v. Orange County Social Services Agency et al., reversing summary judgment in favor of the County and establishing significant precedent for child welfare negligence claims. This decision marks a major victory for survivors of child sexual abuse in foster care and sets the stage for future litigation addressing the responsibilities of social service agencies.
Case Background
The plaintiff, D.G., alleged that he was sexually abused by his foster father, Howard Graubner, from early childhood until his teenage years in the 1970s. Despite repeatedly informing his assigned social worker that “bad people are hurting me,” no action was taken to investigate or remove him from the foster home. The County of Orange argued that it lacked sufficient knowledge to foresee abuse and that discretionary immunity shielded it from liability. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the County.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, finding that the County had failed to demonstrate a lack of duty of care and that discretionary act immunity did not apply. The case was remanded for further proceedings, offering D.G. a renewed opportunity to seek justice.
Key Legal Takeaways
1. Establishing Duty of Care in Foster Care Negligence Cases
The appellate court firmly recognized that a special relationship exists between foster children and the social service agencies responsible for their welfare. Under California law, special relationships create an affirmative duty of care. The court referenced Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, affirming that foreseeability of harm should be assessed broadly rather than requiring actual knowledge of specific abuse.
By applying the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 factors, the court found that the County’s failure to investigate D.G.’s reports of abuse made continued sexual abuse sufficiently foreseeable to impose liability. This decision underscores the obligation of child welfare agencies to act on indications of harm, even in the absence of explicit disclosures.
2. Discretionary Act Immunity Does Not Shield Negligence
The County argued that social workers’ decisions regarding child placements were discretionary acts protected by Government Code section 820.2. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that discretionary immunity only applies when a public entity has consciously balanced risks and benefits in making a policy decision.
Crucially, the record lacked evidence that the social worker or the County made a deliberate, informed decision in response to D.G.’s reports. Citing Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, the court reaffirmed that immunity does not apply where no considered decision-making occurred. This finding ensures that government entities cannot evade liability simply by invoking discretionary immunity without demonstrating actual deliberation.
Judicial Panel and Its Significance
The appellate panel that decided this case was composed of highly respected justices. Justice Eileen Moore, who authored the opinion, is widely regarded as one of the most esteemed justices in California. Additionally, Justice Thomas Delaney, who concurred in the opinion, has a history in child abuse litigation, having previously served as a defense attorney in a 2006 case involving the Salesian Society. This background underscores the challenge of the legal battle and the significance of the appellate victory in overcoming a highly knowledgeable and experienced panel.
Implications for Future Cases
This decision sets a powerful precedent for negligence claims against social service agencies in cases of child abuse. The ruling clarifies that agencies have a duty to act on indicators of abuse, even in the absence of explicit disclosures, and cannot rely on immunity defenses without evidencing a considered decision.
For survivors of childhood sexual abuse, this ruling strengthens the ability to hold public entities accountable for systemic failures. Moving forward, courts will likely apply this reasoning to similar cases, compelling agencies to enhance oversight and responsiveness to abuse reports.
A Step Toward Justice
The Court of Appeal’s decision in D.G. v. Orange County Social Services Agency is a significant victory in the fight for justice for foster care survivors. By recognizing the duty of care owed to vulnerable children and limiting the reach of discretionary immunity, the ruling reinforces the principle that no institution is above accountability when it comes to child safety.
As the case proceeds on remand, it serves as a crucial reminder that the voices of survivors matter and that legal precedent can be a powerful tool in protecting the most vulnerable among us.
Where to Read the Full Case Publication
To read the full published opinion of D.G. v. Orange County Social Services Agency, visit the California Courts’ official website and navigate to the Published Opinions section. The case was published on January 14, 2025, by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three. You can find the opinion by searching for the case title in the database of published decisions: California Courts Published Opinions.