The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) is a comprehensive reporting scheme aimed at identifying and protecting children who are being abused or neglected. Under CANRA, a person who meets the definition of “mandated reporter” must inform a law enforcement agency or a county welfare department whenever the reporter has knowledge of, or observes a child whom the reporter knows, or reasonably suspects, has been the victim of abuse or neglect.
Between 2006 and 2008, the parents of then 14-year-old Ryan Holman physically abused him. In May 2006, the County of Butte Health and Human Services Agency received a report of suspected child abuse from Holman’s teacher, who was a mandated reporter.
Holman’s teacher called intake social worker Bee Lee, who documented the information in an Emergency Response Referral Information form. Lee determined that the information did not meet the definitions of physical abuse or neglect and decided to “evaluate out” the referral. Lee made that decision because there was no evidence of “injury to the child” and no specific information regarding the alleged abuse.
Lee did not perform an in-person investigation. Lee completed the Emergency Response Referral Information form based on the information he received verbally from the mandated reporter and before he received the mandated reporter’s written report. The written report, however, included more details.
In 2020, Holman sued the County, alleging that it breached a mandatory duty under CANRA by failing to cross-report the allegations of abuse to local law enforcement and the DA’s office. The County filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that the County met its burden of demonstrating that Lee “fulfilled his ministerial duties” and was exercising his discretion when he decided to “evaluate out” the report. Thus, even if Lee erred in his how he defined abuse, his decision was protected by discretionary immunity. Holman appealed.
On appeal, Holman argued the trial court erred in concluding that County social workers have discretion to decide whether a mandated report meets the statutory definitions of abuse. Holman argued that when social workers receive a mandated report of suspected child abuse, CANRA imposes a mandatory duty to cross-report the alleged abuse to law enforcement and other agencies. (Penal Code section 11166(j).)
The California Court of Appeal agreed with Holman. The Court concluded that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the County breached that mandatory duty by failing to cross-report the May 2006 referral.
The Court noted that the California Supreme Court precedent unequivocally holds that determining whether a reported incident meets the definitions of abuse or neglect is a ministerial or operational function, not a discretionary activity. Accordingly, even if social workers are required to cross-report only those allegations that meet the definitions of abuse or neglect, there was still a triable issue of fact in this case as to whether the County violated a mandatory duty by failing to cross-report the referral.
Holman v. County of Butte, 2025 Cal.App.LEXIS 311.