Can You Sue a County Over Negligence That Led to Molestation

Quote:

---

Quoting Shanna Allstead

---

Doesnt change the fact there was never any social worker follow up and had their been theyd know she was on drugs and the welfare of the children was at stake and that my husband wasnt there because he was left at someone else rather then her care.

---

This isn't the way to help your husband now. You need to offer him love and support, not look for retribution that isn't going to come.

A situation like this meaning that her kids were taken away from her because she was an unfit parent, on drugs, caught with drugs and went to jail. The children were returned back to her with no follow through to make sure that, 1 they had a permanent residence meaning they had a place to stay with proper living arrangements for him and his sister, they had food clothing and all proper essentials, we re enrolled into school where they had located, and that the biggest thing, she was no longer on drugs. If they would have followed through they would have seen this was not the case.

Yes the molestation happened after she regained custody and she got so spun out on drugs and left her kids at random houses while she went on months at a time benders.

I do believe she was on parole but do I personally know the exact terms no I do not, shes not very forth coming let alone honest.

Quote:

---

Quoting Antigone

---

This isn't the way to help your husband now. You need to offer him love and support, not look for retribution that isn't going to come.

---

I am doing this because he asked me to, I do offer him love and support, but everything in regards to building a legal case of out it is his will not mine.

The burden of proof, for a suit to be successful is very high. You must show based on a pattern of reporting , Social Services failed to investigate in good faith. Hubby is nowhere near that burden. Without saying to much because the case is very prominent, I am indirectly associated with a case where patterns are existent and the negligence resulted in death.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

The burden of proof, for a suit to be successful is very high. You must show based on a pattern of reporting , Social Services failed to investigate in good faith.

---

No, you need to show a lot more than that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Jenkins v. County of Orange (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 278, emphasis added

---

[S]ocial workers have only qualified immunity against section 1983 claims when they take a child into custody without a court order "[b]ecause the [social workers'] actions in taking possession of the children [are] not integral to the judicial process...." The Hodorowski court established the test for applying qualified immunity to a social worker — the objective reasonableness of the action. (Id., at p. 1214.) "We think that qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, strikes the better balance between" (id., at p. 1216) the family's right to privacy and the state's interest in discovering and preventing child abuse.

Neither appellants nor respondents cite Hodorowski which was decided a year before the United States Supreme Court, in DeShaney v. Winnebago Soc. Serv. (1989) 489 U.S. 189, 197 [103 L.Ed.2d 249, 259, 109 S.Ct. 998], held "a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment]." DeShaney noted the due process clause imposes no duty on a social worker or the state to intervene to protect a child whom they know or have reason to know is being abused. (Id., at p. 201 [103 L.Ed.2d at pp. 262-263.) Effectively, a child has protection from abuse only when the state, via a social worker, chooses to intervene.

In the case before us, appellants concede Barrington acted within the scope of her employment when she failed to thoroughly investigate the reports and took Daniel into custody without a court order. Should we hold a state or social worker acting within the scope of his or her employment is not absolutely immune from suits arising from the voluntary intervention to protect a child, we would indirectly eliminate the protection afforded to children. The state's interest in preventing child abuse will be diminished due to fear of retaliatory suits. The state and its social workers would not take the child into custody until the inflicted injuries could be "recorded" to meet the "objectively reasonable" test of qualified immunity or until they obtain a court order which ensures absolute immunity. Such a result negates the purpose of child protective services by postponing prevention of further abuse to avoid liability.

---