Jacqueline T. v. Alameda County Child Protective Services

Good Law
155 Cal. App. 4th 456·66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 157
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 4, 2007A116420California8,638 words

Opinion

Opinion

Horner, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of respondents Alameda County Child Protective Services (County) and two of its employees, Michael Yee and Paula Richards (collectively, Employees). Appellant Jacqueline T., individually and as guardian ad litem for minors Roes 1 through 3 (collectively, Minors), filed a complaint alleging several causes of action sounding in negligence and negligence per se based on Employees’ conduct in investigating reports of possible sexual abuse of Minors.

Respondents moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Respondents then filed a petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition in this court, which we granted after concluding respondents were immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2 and/or section 821.6. Complying with the alternative writ, the trial court vacated its order denying respondents’ summary judgment motion and entered a new order granting the motion.

On appeal, Jacqueline T. raises essentially the same arguments she relied upon in opposing summary judgment and the petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition. And for the same reasons we rejected her arguments previously, we reject…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.