The Rule of Alternative Family Services is that foster family agencies (FFAs) have a duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse by foster parents where the FFA knew or should have known that the foster parent presented a risk of such abuse, under circumstances involving FFA negligence in screening and supervising foster parents who sexually abuse children.
Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Sonoma County.
Defendant Appellant was Alternative Family Services, Inc. — the nonprofit FFA that screened, approved, and supervised the foster home where plaintiffs were placed and abused.
Plaintiff Respondents were C.F., E.F., and S.F. — three minor siblings (ages 2, 5, and 6 when placed) who were sexually abused by their foster father Mark Martinez while in the FFA-approved foster home.
The suit sounded in negligence and negligent breach of mandatory duties. [No cross-claims identified.]
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that plaintiffs were placed in the Martinez foster home in April 2018 after defendant approved it despite violating four California Department of Social Services regulations during screening, including failing to conduct separate individual interviews, conducting insufficient home interviews, failing to complete required psychosocial assessments (Martinez left 9 of 26 screening questions unanswered, including questions about sexual abuse history), and failing to assess mental health (Martinez had personality changes after a 2015 injury and was later diagnosed with delusional disorder). Martinez sexually abused C.F. and E.F. during the 70-day placement and was removed in June 2018 after suspicious behavior during a visit led to discovery of the abuse.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied defendant's motions for nonsuit and directed verdict, and the jury found defendant negligent, awarding $24.7 million in damages with 60% fault assigned to defendant, ruling that defendant had an unrestricted duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse without requiring actual knowledge of specific risk.
The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether an FFA's duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse should be limited under Rowland factors to require actual knowledge of risk, constructive knowledge (knew or should have known), or no knowledge limitation.
The Appellate Court held that FFAs have a duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse where the FFA knew or should have known of a risk of abuse by a particular foster parent, but affirmed the judgment because defendant failed to show reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different verdict under proper jury instructions.
The case is inapplicable when the FFA could not reasonably have discovered the risk of sexual abuse through proper screening and supervision, when there is no special relationship between the FFA and foster child, or when the case involves different third-party liability contexts outside the FFA-foster care setting.
The case leaves open whether liability standards differ when counties perform FFA functions rather than private FFAs, the precise scope of what constitutes "should have known" in various screening contexts, and how this standard applies to other youth-serving organizations outside the foster care system.
Counsel
For Appellant: [Not determinable from opinion text]
For Respondent: [Not determinable from opinion text]
Amicus curiae: American Property Casualty Insurance Association, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of California (NIAC), David and Margaret Home, Inc. (supporting defendant); Children's Advocacy Institute, Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, Consumer Attorneys of California (supporting plaintiffs)