Christina C. v. County of Orange CA4/3
220 Cal. App. 4th 1371
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Christina C. appeals from summary judgment favoring the County of Orange, SSA, and several SSA social workers in a civil action arising from SSA's removal of her son C.C. from her custody and placement with the father, then return to her care.
- Dependency proceedings had vested SSA with discretion to place or redetain C.C. and to monitor or liberalize visitation under a CRISP release.
- C.C. was initially placed with mother under CRISP after a 2009 dependency disposition; mother signed the conditions, including therapy and promoting father visits.
- In 2009 SSA moved to unmonitor visits; mother allegedly refused cooperation, leading SSA to redetain C.C. with his father, later placing him back with mother due to concerns about the father’s neglect.
- In 2010: father pled guilty to related charges; dependency ended with mother given sole custody with monitored visitation; civil action followed in 2011 asserting civil rights violations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment based on Government Code section 820.2 immunity for discretionary child removal/placement decisions; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether social workers are immune from civil liability for discretionary child removal decisions. | C.C.'s removal was malicious and outside statutory authority. | Immunity under Gov. Code § 820.2 shields discretionary actions even if abusive. | Immunity barred the claims; decisions immune even if flawed. |
| Whether Gov. Code § 820.21 exemptions defeat immunity for malice-based acts. | Malice in removing C.C. could overcome immunity under § 820.21. | § 820.21 does not provide a broad malice exception for removal decisions. | § 820.21 does not create a malice exception for this removal decision. |
| Whether plaintiffs forfeited appellate review due to lack of record citations. | Appeal challenges factual grounds behind SSA actions. | Lack of record cites forfeits arguments; record must be cited and aggregated. | Claims forfeited; appellate challenges not supported by record citations. |
| Whether the dependency court’s delegation to SSA to remove/retake custody violated due process per Santosky. | Delegation usurped judicial authority and violated due process. | Dependency court empowered SSA; Santosky not controlling due to provisional custody. | No per se due process violation; dependency orders authorized SSA discretion and are immune. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process in parental rights and state intrusion)
- Ortega v. Sacramento County Dept. of Health & Human Services, 161 Cal.App.4th 713 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (immunity even when evaluation is flawed)
- Jacqueline T. v. Alameda County Child Protective Services, 155 Cal.App.4th 456 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2007) (public employee immunity for placement decisions)
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal.4th 972 (Cal. 1995) (limits of administrative discretion and immunity)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (official-capacity liability requires policy or custom)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (reversible error presumption in appellate review)