If you were abused by a group home employee in California, California law may allow a civil claim against the employee and against the organization that ran the home. Depending on the facts, a placing agency may also be responsible. The deadline to file depends on your age at the time, the year the abuse happened and who the defendant is.
What a Group Home Is Under California Law
Group homes in California are licensed residential settings. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) licenses and inspects them through its Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD). The legal framework comes from the California Community Care Facilities Act, Health and Safety Code section 1501 and the sections that follow it.
Several kinds of facilities fall within this area:
- Group homes, the older licensing category for children's residential care.
- Short-term residential therapeutic programs (STRTPs), which now provide most congregate care for foster youth who need treatment.
- Foster family homes and homes certified through foster family agencies.
- Other community care facilities that serve adults with mental illness or disabilities.
"Group home employee" can include direct-care staff, house managers, counselors, overnight staff, drivers who transport residents, and volunteers who are given time alone with residents.
What Counts as Abuse by a Group Home Employee
For children. Penal Code section 11165.1 defines "sexual abuse" as sexual assault or sexual exploitation. It lists the specific crimes that count and states that the definition "includes, but is not limited to" a range of conduct. Penal Code section 11165.3 covers the "willful harming or injuring of a child," meaning causing or permitting a child to suffer "unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering," or putting a child's health at risk while responsible for that child.
For adults. The Welfare and Institutions Code defines abuse of an elder or dependent adult. A dependent adult is someone age 18 to 64 whose physical or mental limits restrict their ability to protect themselves. The definition includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, isolation, abduction and neglect.
In plain terms, these categories cover the following:
- Physical abuse: causing bodily harm, or punishment that goes beyond what the law allows.
- Sexual abuse: any sexual contact with a child. With adults, it covers sexual contact a resident did not or could not agree to.
- Emotional abuse and isolation: threats, humiliation, or cutting a resident off from family or visitors.
- Financial abuse: taking or misusing a resident's money or property.
- Neglect: failing to provide food, medical care, hygiene or supervision.
Who Can Be Held Legally Responsible
The employee. The individual who caused the harm can be sued directly.
The operator or licensee. The organization that runs the home owes residents a duty of care. Claims against operators usually rest on one or more of these theories:
- Negligent hiring: hiring someone the operator knew, or should have known, was unsafe.
- Negligent supervision: failing to monitor staff or residents in a way that would have prevented the harm.
- Negligent retention: keeping an employee on after warning signs appeared.
Respondeat superior means an employer can be responsible for what its employee does on the job. Courts apply it in sexual abuse cases with some limits, so negligence theories often do most of the work.
Screening failures. Penal Code section 11105.3 sets up a fingerprint-based state and national criminal history check that qualified organizations may use to screen employees and volunteers. Missing, incomplete or ignored checks can be evidence of negligence.
Placing agencies and public entities. County child welfare departments and regional centers may carry their own responsibility if they knew or should have known about a risk. When a public employee's conduct is involved, Government Code section 815.2(a) applies:
"A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative."
Under subdivision (b) of that section, a public entity is generally not liable where its employee is immune.
