Gabrielle A. v. County of Orange
10 Cal. App. 5th 1268
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May–June 2011 Orange County social workers detained two children (John and newborn Gregory) after hospital staff reported concerning behavior by mother Gabrielle, including psychotic/erratic actions while newborn was in NICU; father Nicholas’s paternity/availability was uncertain in early interviews.
- SSA prepared detention and jurisdiction reports recommending detention and potential placement; the juvenile court detained the children and authorized release to a "suitable adult."
- On June 16, 2011 Gabrielle and Nicholas knowingly and voluntarily pleaded no contest to an amended dependency petition admitting facts sufficient for jurisdiction; the case was transferred to Los Angeles for disposition and children were placed with relatives pending disposition.
- Plaintiffs later filed extensive federal and state litigation alleging social-worker misconduct (fabrication, withholding exculpatory evidence, perjury, malice) and various state-law torts and civil-rights claims; federal court granted summary judgment for defendants and remanded state claims to Orange County.
- Orange County trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on remaining state claims, relying principally on (1) the parents’ no-contest pleas as precluding challenge to the jurisdictional basis for detention and (2) statutory discretionary immunity for social workers; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/effect of parents’ no-contest pleas | Pleas were involuntary/coerced and cannot bar later tort claims about wrongful detention | Pleas were knowingly and intelligently entered and admit facts sufficient for juvenile-court jurisdiction, barring collateral attack on basis for detention | Pleas were valid; they preclude relitigation of jurisdictional sufficiency and defeat claims premised on wrongful detention |
| Applicability of discretionary/qualified immunity (Gov. Code §§ 820.2, 815.2) to social workers’ removal/placement decisions | Immunity should not apply because social workers fabricated evidence, withheld exculpatory reports, and acted with malice | Removal/placement decisions are discretionary; immunity is broad; plaintiffs have no admissible evidence of statutory malice required to abrogate immunity under Gov. Code § 820.21 | Immunity applies; plaintiffs failed to raise triable issues that social workers committed malice-level misconduct entitling them to defeat immunity |
| Application of Gov. Code § 820.21 (perjury/fabrication/exculpatory evidence exception) | Numerous acts (alleged falsified applications, withheld psychiatrist report) fit § 820.21 exception | Plaintiffs’ assertions are speculative, unsupported by admissible evidence; § 820.21 requires malice and specific proof which plaintiffs lack | § 820.21 does not apply; plaintiffs did not establish malice or material evidence fabrication/non-disclosure creating a triable issue |
| Merits of remaining state tort/civil-rights claims (negligent hiring/supervision, IIED, Civ. Code § 43, Bane/Ralph Acts) | Social workers’ conduct was outrageous, discriminatory, and caused severe emotional harm; factual disputes exist on visitation, milk orders, transfer | Plaintiffs offer no statutory basis or admissible evidence for many claims; Bane/Ralph Acts require violence/threats/discriminatory motive which plaintiffs do not show | Summary judgment proper on all remaining state claims; plaintiffs failed to show triable issues or requisite elements (e.g., severe distress, threats, discriminatory motive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (standards for summary judgment and burdens of production)
- In re Troy Z., 3 Cal.4th 1170 (no-contest plea admits matters essential to juvenile-court jurisdiction)
- Christina C. v. County of Orange, 220 Cal.App.4th 1371 (discretionary immunity for social workers in removal/placement decisions)
- Ortega v. Sacramento County Dept. of Health & Human Services, 161 Cal.App.4th 713 (immunity applies even if decision leads to tragic outcomes)
- Barner v. Leeds, 24 Cal.4th 676 (distinction for administrative/policy acts not immune in some contexts)
- Federico v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 1207 (elements for negligent hiring/supervision claims against public employers)