Casey N. v. Cnty. of Orange

• Decision Date: 23 December 2022
• Docket Number: G059917
• Citation: 86 Cal.App.5th 1158,302 Cal.Rptr.3d 827
• Parties: CASEY N., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE et al., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

86 Cal.App.5th 1158

302 Cal.Rptr.3d 827

CASEY N., Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.COUNTY OF ORANGE et al., Defendants and Appellants.

G059917

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

Filed December 23, 2022

Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, Daniel K. Spradlin, Jeanne L. Tollison, and Roberta A. Kraus, Costa Mesa, for Defendants and Appellants.

The Lanier Law Firm, Michael Akselrud, Woodland Hills, Rebecca Phillips ; Messing & Spector, Noah A. Messing and Phillip M. Spector for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

O'LEARY, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Casey N. (Casey) sued the County of Orange (the County) and two employees of the County's Social Services Agency (the Agency) for violating her civil rights in connection with a dependency proceeding involving Casey's minor child. A jury found in Casey's favor and awarded her damages. The County and its employees appealed; we affirm.

First, we conclude the trial court did not err by failing to determine the materiality of allegedly fabricated or misrepresented evidence or omitted exculpatory evidence before giving the case to the jury for deliberation.

Second, we conclude the jury's verdict against the employees was supported by substantial evidence.

Third, we conclude the employees were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Fourth and finally, we conclude the jury's verdict against the County under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 ( Monell ) was supported by substantial evidence.

We publish this case for two reasons. First, we reiterate the need for sufficient and appropriate training for all Agency employees. Second, we reinforce the absolute necessity of complete, accurate, and honest reports by the Agency in dependency cases, given the juvenile court's reliance on the knowledge and expertise of the Agency in making its decisions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Casey and Scott P. (Scott) are the parents of E.P. (the minor). During proceedings regarding the dissolution of their marriage in the Orange County family law court, Casey obtained a domestic violence temporary restraining order against Scott, after which he was ordered to participate in an anger management program. Casey and Scott agreed Casey would have sole legal custody of the minor and they would share joint physical custody. Casey was to have primary physical custody, with Scott having monitored visitation until he had completed parenting classes, after which his visitation with the minor would be unmonitored.

In September 2007, the then three-year-old minor reported to Casey's new husband that Scott had touched her inside her vagina. A dependency proceeding was initiated in San Bernardino County (where Casey was then living) based on allegations Scott had sexually abused or was at risk of sexually abusing the minor. A social worker recommended the court sustain the petition and the minor be removed from Scott's custody. However, that social worker was replaced immediately before the jurisdiction hearing, and the newly appointed social worker recommended the court dismiss the petition. The San Bernardino County dependency court accepted the new recommendation and dismissed the petition.

The Chandler Arizona Police Department investigated the matter, but closed the case in August 2008 due to lack of evidence. (At that time, Scott lived in Arizona.)

In September 2008, the minor told her teacher about another act of sexual abuse by Scott occurring in a movie theater. In November and December 2008, the minor made statements that Scott had also digitally penetrated her while at an urgent care facility in Arizona where the minor was being treated for a bladder infection. The social worker in San Bernardino County found the allegations to be unfounded and refused to file a new dependency petition; the matter was referred back to the family law court in Orange County.

An Orange County social worker found the sexual abuse report substantiated, and in December 2008 a petition was filed in Orange County dependency court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d), alleging Scott had sexually abused the minor and Casey could not protect the minor because of the existence of custody and visitation orders from the family law court. At the detention hearing, the dependency court ordered the minor to remain in Casey's custody; social worker Birgitt Walpus was assigned to investigate the matter.

Walpus filed an addendum report in February 2009. In that report, Walpus quoted from Casey's e-mail to Walpus's supervisor. Casey's e-mail claimed, in part, Walpus had said she planned to dismiss the case. Therefore, Walpus had told Casey there was no need to speak with law enforcement, the minor's therapist, teacher, or pediatrician, maternal family members, or the San Bernardino social worker because "speaking with those people would not make any difference in her decision that this [is] not an issue of my child's safety." In the addendum report, Walpus also noted that Casey claimed the minor had said Walpus was romantically involved with Scott; Walpus stated Casey's claim was "baffling."

The addendum report included the following assessments and recommendations by Walpus:

• "The undersigned firmly believes that the child ... has been subject to emotional abuse by the child's mother ...."

• "Once again, this shows that the child's mother, Casey, is trying to keep the child from seeing her father and is acting in her own interest and denying the child to spend [sic ] quality time with her father."

• "After the undersigned informed the child's mother of the [potty training] accidents, the child's mother came up with the story that the child ... had nightmares and wetting of her pants. Her timeline of events is off by one week, and it appears that the nightmares and bedwetting were made up by the child's mother."

• "To put it plain and simple, this is a nasty Family Law case that involves the child ... and it is the undersigned's opinion that the child's mother is feeding information or coaching information to the child .... It is extremely unfortunate that the child's parents cannot put their differences aside for their own child's sake. Both of the parents have displayed an extreme disregard for each other. [¶] Because of the mother's actions, the undersigned is beginning to wonder whether placement of the child with the mother is appropriate. The undersigned is extremely concerned that Social Services will not be able to ensure the child's safety and well being if the child's mother continues to make allegations and giving the child ... false information and not complying with visitation orders, which continues to have a negative impact on the child's emotional well-being."

In March 2009, Walpus was removed as the assigned social worker, and social worker Minda Herman was assigned to replace her.

In the jurisdiction report filed in April 2009, Herman recommended the court sustain the petition, declare dependency, order family maintenance services to Casey, order an enhancement plan for Scott, and order Evidence Code section 730 evaluations of the minor, Casey, and Scott. Crucially, Herman stated she could not be certain either that the minor had been sexually abused or that she had been coached to disclose sexual abuse, and recommended the dependency petition be amended to allege emotional abuse by Casey. "The undersigned remains highly concerned about the fact that the child believes she has been sexually assaulted by her father and readily discloses her beliefs with minimal to no prompting by adults. In short, although the undersigned does not believe the minor was, in fact, digitally penetrated on November 22, 2008 at the Sun Valley Pediatric Urgent Care Center, the minor's persistence provides ample disquiet. The undersigned cannot state with any certainty that [the minor] has not been sexually abused in the past and the fact that she continues to disclose that she has been cannot be ignored. The undersigned cannot state with any certainty that [the minor] has been coached or otherwise influenced to disclose sexual abuse. Thus, the undersigned believes that a[n Evidence Code section] 730 Evaluation of the child, her mother and father will provide additional and objective insight as to the nature of the sexual abuse allegations in this case and to address the most appropriate venue for visitation. [¶] The undersigned believes the petition should be amended to reflect the issues stated above and that the child is in need of the protection of the Court. The undersigned further believes [the minor] is in need of continued therapeutic intervention as are her biological parents to better understand the child's beliefs and how to best deal with them as a unit despite their divorce." (Italics added.)

In May 2009, the Orange County Deputy County Counsel dismissed the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d) counts and the sexual abuse allegations against Scott from the petition, and replaced them with a count under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c) for emotional damage or endangerment based on allegations Casey had influenced the minor to make unsubstantiated accusations of sexual abuse against Scott, and had provided false or misleading information to those investigating the sexual abuse claims to bolster her own credibility and undermine Scott's credibility. Casey's trial counsel stipulated to the dismissal of the sexual abuse allegations and the filing of the amended petition.

In August 2009, at a jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, Casey had knowingly caused the minor to falsely report she had been sexually abused by Scott and this conduct caused or placed the minor at substantial risk for serious emotional harm.

On the record, the juvenile court acknowledged the significance to its decision of the Agency's findings and recommendations: "In this Court...