K.C. v. County of Merced
F087088
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- K.C., the plaintiff, alleges she was sexually abused in the 1970s while in two foster care placements under the custody of Merced County.
- The abuse reportedly occurred in two different foster homes by two different perpetrators connected to the foster families.
- K.C. asserts she repeatedly reported the abuse to her county social worker, but no corrective action was taken, and she continued to be exposed to abuse.
- K.C. sued Merced County under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1, arguing the County's negligence in placement, supervision, and response led to her childhood sexual assault injuries.
- The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the complaint; K.C. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| County Liability for Failure to Act on Abuse Reports | County failed operational/ministerial duties by not taking corrective action after abuse reports | Social workers’/County decisions on investigation and remedial actions were discretionary and immune under Gov’t Code § 820.2; County is derivatively immune under § 815.2(b) | Decisions whether to investigate/act were discretionary policy choices; immunity applies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Complaint States Sufficient Facts for Liability | Alleged abuse, repeated notice, no action—states claim for negligence | No facts showing County was on notice during Foster Home 2 abuse; discretionary immunity shields County regardless | Complaint sufficiently alleges notice, but immunity bars liability anyway |
| Distinction between Discretionary and Ministerial Acts | Supervisory actions after foster care placement are operational/ministerial, not discretionary | Decisions to investigate or take action in child abuse matters are still discretionary and policy-based | Court agrees with County—actions alleged are discretionary, not ministerial |
| Requirement for Factual Showing of Actual Discretion | County complaint does not show a specific, considered exercise of discretion by employees | Government Code § 820.2 applies as long as the act involves judgment or policy choice; immunity not negated by lack of detailed discretion allegations | Factual pleading of conscious discretion not required for immunity; broad allegations suffice for demurrer |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal.4th 972 (Cal. 1995) (clarifies discretionary immunity for public employee decisions)
- Johnson v. State of California, 69 Cal.2d 782 (Cal. 1968) (differentiates between policy decisions (immunized) and operational acts by public officials)
- Kemmerer v. County of Fresno, 200 Cal.App.3d 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (public entity not liable if employee is immunized for discretionary decisions)