C.F., a Minor, etc., et al. v. Alternative Family Services, Inc.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considers whether a foster family agency owed a duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse by a foster parent. Applying the Rowland factors, the court holds that an agency may be liable where it knew or should have known of a risk of abuse by a particular foster parent, but affirms the judgment because the instructional error did not establish a reasonable probability of a different verdict.

Holdings

1. A foster family agency has a duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse by a foster parent when the agency knew or should have known that the foster parent presented a risk of committing sexual abuse.
2. The trial court's negligence instructions were erroneous because they permitted the jury to find the FFA liable without finding that it knew or should have known that the foster parent presented a risk of sexual abuse.
3. The instructional error did not require reversal because the agency failed to show a reasonable probability that a properly instructed jury would have reached a different verdict.
4. The jury was permitted to assign the FFA a greater share of fault than the foster father who intentionally committed the abuse, and the 60-percent allocation to the FFA did not require reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a foster family agency has a duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse by a foster parent when the agency knew or should have known that the foster parent presented a risk of abuse.
2. Whether the Rowland factors limit an FFA's duty to circumstances involving actual knowledge, constructive knowledge, or only general foreseeability of the risk.
3. Whether the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous because they permitted liability without a finding that the FFA knew or should have known of a specific risk of abuse.
4. Whether the instructional error required reversal of the judgment.
5. Whether the jury's apportionment of greater fault to the FFA than to the intentional perpetrator required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed