The Case: Ronald S. v. County of San Diego (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 887 [Fourth District, Division One]
The court found that the county was immune from liability pursuant to Government Code sections 820.2 and 815.2 in its selection of an adoptive home for a dependent child.
Relying on Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782 [FN 1], the court held that preadoption work of the social service employees of the county constituted a discretionary activity protected by immunity under Government Code section 820.2. "The nature of the investigation to be conducted and the ultimate determination of suitability of adoptive parents bear the hallmarks of uniquely discretionary activity. The decisions made in the adoption process are by nature highly subjective.... There is no way that the following of forms or rules or agency procedures could transmute this most subjective decisionmaking process into a ministerial act.
Following the Johnson admonition to courts not to second-guess policy decisions of other branches of government, we opine that second-guessing adoption decisions, and imposing civil liability upon public servants when the decision turns out to be wrong, would severely interfere with and surely impede the proper workings of the responsible social service department." Ronald S. v. County of San Diego (1993) 16 C..4th 887, 897 [4th Dist. Div. 1]; Becerra v. County of Santa Cruz (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1450 [Sixth Dist.]
---------------------------------
[FN 1] Johnson is recognized as the leading authority as to the meaning of discretionary acts for the purposes of §820.2. See Barrier v. Leeds (2000) 24 Cal.4th 676; Perez-Torres v. State 42 Cal.4th 136 (2007).
Whats related:
"What discretionary acts means for the immunity purposes under Gov. Code 820.2."
No comments:
Post a Comment