B.H. v. County of San Bernardino
62 Cal. 4th 168
| Cal. | 2015Background
- In Sept 2008 a 911 caller (Kinney) reported suspected child abuse of B.H. after a visit with his father; the 911 report was dispatched to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
- Deputy Swanson responded, briefly observed the sleeping child (who had some bruises), interviewed parties, ran records, concluded the matter involved a custody dispute and cleared the case; the Sheriff’s Department did not cross-report the 911 call to the county child welfare agency (DCFS).
- About three weeks later B.H. suffered severe head injuries while visiting his father; medical opinion concluded the injuries were from abusive head trauma.
- B.H. (through guardian ad litem) sued the county, Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Swanson, and others for failing to cross-report or report under CANRA (Pen. Code § 11164 et seq.) and related public‑entity negligence theories (Gov. Code §§ 815.2, 815.6).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants (concluding no mandatory duty to cross-report and that investigative decisions were discretionary and immunized); the Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a law enforcement agency has a mandatory duty under Penal Code § 11166(k) to cross‑report every known or suspected report it receives to the county welfare/probation agency and DA | San Bernardino County had an independent, ministerial duty under § 11166(k) to cross‑report Kinney’s 911 report to DCFS and DA | The duty to cross‑report depends on the investigating officer’s discretionary determination after investigation; no separate mandatory duty arose | Held: Yes. § 11166(k) imposes an obligatory, ministerial duty on law enforcement agencies to cross‑report initial reports they receive; county liability under Gov. Code § 815.6 may follow from failure to cross‑report (reversed as to this issue) |
| Whether an investigating deputy (a mandated reporter) had a mandatory duty under Penal Code § 11166(a) to file a report based on her observations and investigative findings when dispatched to follow up on an existing report | Swanson, as a mandated reporter, had an objective duty to report if her observations gave rise to reasonable suspicion; disputed facts about bruising precluded summary judgment | Swanson’s follow‑up investigation and conclusion (no abuse) were discretionary investigatory acts entitled to immunity; § 11166(a) duties apply to initial reporters, not to investigators following an earlier report | Held: No duty to file under § 11166(a) in these circumstances; an officer dispatched to investigate an already‑reported incident does not automatically have the § 11166(a) reporting obligation (summary judgment as to § 11166(a) claim was affirmed) |
| Whether investigatory decisions by a deputy are protected by governmental immunities (Gov. Code §§ 820.2, 821.6) | N/A (plaintiff disputed that immunity applied to bar liability for failure to report) | Investigatory decisions are discretionary and immune under Gov. Code § 821.6; hence no vicarious public‑entity liability | Held: Because § 11166(a) reporting duty did not apply to Swanson’s investigative role here, the Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the negligence claim (immunity analysis not necessary to resolve that claim) |
| Remedy / disposition | N/A | N/A | Held: Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed in part (as to county’s § 11166(k) duty) and affirmed in part (as to deputy’s § 11166(a) duty); remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. County of Monterey, 46 Cal.4th 887 (2009) (articulates three‑part test for public entity liability under Gov. Code § 815.6 and distinction between mandatory and discretionary duties)
- Alejo v. City of Alhambra, 75 Cal.App.4th 1180 (1999) (previous Court of Appeal decision holding officer duties to investigate and report; disapproved to the extent inconsistent with this opinion)
- Newton v. County of Napa, 217 Cal.App.3d 1551 (1990) (distinguishes immunity of mandated reporters from immunity for investigators who receive reports)
- James W. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.4th 246 (1993) (recognizes dichotomy between reporter and reportee and limits reporting immunities to reporter function)
- Landeros v. Flood, 17 Cal.3d 399 (1976) (historical recognition that failure to report can give rise to civil liability)