## Facts

- A private citizen called 911 to report suspected abuse of two-year-old B.H. during a visit with his father.
- The 911 operator relayed the report to the County Sheriff’s Department, which dispatched Deputy Kimberly Swanson.
- Swanson investigated, concluded the report reflected an ongoing custody dispute, observed no abuse, and ended the matter without further investigation.
- The Sheriff’s Department did not cross-report the suspected abuse information to the county child welfare agency (DCFS).
- About three to four weeks later, during another visit with his father, B.H. suffered devastating head injuries later determined to be caused by abuse.
- B.H., through a guardian ad litem, sued the County and related defendants for failing to comply with CANRA reporting and cross-reporting requirements.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, reasoning there was no mandatory cross-reporting duty and, in any event, immunity applied for discretionary decisions; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether CANRA imposed a mandatory, ministerial duty on the Sheriff’s Department to cross-report to the child welfare agency upon receipt of the 911 abuse allegations.
2. Whether CANRA imposed a mandatory duty on the dispatched investigating deputy to make a report to the child welfare agency despite concluding no abuse occurred.
3. Whether breach of CANRA’s cross-reporting duty can support public entity liability under Government Code § 815.6, and whether discretionary-act immunity defeats such a claim.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The Court held the Sheriff’s Department had a mandatory, ministerial duty under CANRA to cross-report the abuse allegations received through the 911 call to the child welfare agency.
- The Court held the County could face potential liability under Government Code § 815.6 for breach of that mandatory duty, subject to proof of the statute’s remaining elements.
- The Court held Deputy Swanson had no separate CANRA duty on these facts to submit an additional report to the child welfare agency, given her investigatory role responding to a report already received by law enforcement and her conclusion that no abuse occurred.
- The Court rejected the argument that the plaintiff forfeited reliance on the statutory cross-reporting provision.
- The Court concluded discretionary immunity did not bar a § 815.6 claim premised on failure to perform a clearly prescribed, ministerial cross-reporting duty, while summary judgment for the deputy remained proper because no mandatory duty applied to her conduct on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- CANRA is intended to protect children from abuse and to increase interagency communication and information sharing.
- A law enforcement agency’s CANRA cross-reporting obligation is triggered upon receipt of a report of known or suspected child abuse and does not depend on completion of an investigation or an agency’s evaluative judgment.
- Failure to perform CANRA’s mandatory, ministerial cross-reporting duty may support public entity liability under Government Code § 815.6 when the duty is designed to protect against the kind of injury suffered.
- Discretionary investigative decisions may be immune, but immunity does not negate liability for failure to perform a ministerial statutory duty that is clearly required.
- An investigating peace officer responding to an allegation already routed to law enforcement does not necessarily incur an additional, separate CANRA duty to report to child welfare agencies when the statutory scheme assigns the cross-reporting obligation to the agency and the officer concludes abuse is not reasonably suspected on the facts observed.

## Conclusion

The court held that CANRA requires law enforcement agencies to cross-report suspected child abuse information received through 911 to child welfare authorities, creating potential public entity liability under Government Code § 815.6 for noncompliance, while rejecting individual liability for the dispatched investigating deputy under the specific circumstances presented.


B.H. v. County of San Bernardino, 62 Cal. 4th 168 (Cal. 2015)