Song: Murder of a child who had been placed in foster care
Viewed: 10 - Published at: 7 years ago
Artist: Salinda
Year: 2021Viewed: 10 - Published at: 7 years ago
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff mother appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County (California), which granted summary judgment for defendant county in plaintiff's action for negligence or breach of duty in relation to murder of a child who had been placed in foster care.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a civil attorney
Overview
Plaintiff mother sued defendant county, alleging negligence and breach of mandatory duties when it placed her child in a fostеr home and failed to provide sufficiеnt supervision. The child was found murdered at an elementary school during the period she was in foster care. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed on the grounds that plaintiff did not have a prima facie case under Cal. Gov't Code § 815.6, and defendant was immune from liability under Cal. Gov't Code § 820.2. Further, plaintiff failed to show that defendant violated the duty set forth Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16501.1 (1991). The foster home placement of the child was a discretionary decision. As a result, under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 815.2, 820.2, defendant was immune from tort liability. The placement decision here was properly monitored as required by the statutory scheme. The social worker's handling of the child's placement was within statutory and regulatory guidelines, including the failure to remove her from the foster home. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted for defendant.
Outcome
The court affirmed grant of summary judgment for defendant county, as it had immunity from plaintiff mother's claims based on negligence of breach of duty involving placement of her child in foster care.
Plaintiff mother appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County (California), which granted summary judgment for defendant county in plaintiff's action for negligence or breach of duty in relation to murder of a child who had been placed in foster care.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a civil attorney
Overview
Plaintiff mother sued defendant county, alleging negligence and breach of mandatory duties when it placed her child in a fostеr home and failed to provide sufficiеnt supervision. The child was found murdered at an elementary school during the period she was in foster care. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed on the grounds that plaintiff did not have a prima facie case under Cal. Gov't Code § 815.6, and defendant was immune from liability under Cal. Gov't Code § 820.2. Further, plaintiff failed to show that defendant violated the duty set forth Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16501.1 (1991). The foster home placement of the child was a discretionary decision. As a result, under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 815.2, 820.2, defendant was immune from tort liability. The placement decision here was properly monitored as required by the statutory scheme. The social worker's handling of the child's placement was within statutory and regulatory guidelines, including the failure to remove her from the foster home. Thus, summary judgment was properly granted for defendant.
Outcome
The court affirmed grant of summary judgment for defendant county, as it had immunity from plaintiff mother's claims based on negligence of breach of duty involving placement of her child in foster care.
( Salinda )
www.ChordsAZ.com