K.S., then 12, alleged a male staff member sexually abused him between 2006 and 2007 in an Alameda County group home. He reported the abuse to the supervisor—an agent of the county—but no investigation or protective action followed.
In 2022, K.S. filed a negligence suit, arguing that the county’s inadequate supervision, insufficient training of caseworkers, and lack of background checks created a foreseeable risk of abuse. He sought holding the county vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees and contractors.
The trial court dismissed the case, citing governmental immunity under California Government Code §820.2. Alameda County contended that decisions about investigating abuse reports and determining protective measures were discretionary and therefore shielded.
The First Appellate District reversed the dismissal, distinguishing between discretionary policy decisions and ministerial duties. The court found that K.S.’s complaint alleged failures to recognize abuse, conduct proper checks, and implement child‑safety standards—acts beyond a single policy choice.
The case is now returned to the district court for further proceedings. A hearing is set for December 12, 2026, where the jury will decide whether the county’s conduct amounted to negligence.