C.F. v. Alternative Family Services

── C.F. v. Alternative Family Services ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE C.F., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A170226, A171966 v. (Sonoma County ALTERNATIVE FAMILY Super. Ct. No. SCV-264540) SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant. A foster family agency (FFA) is a nonprofit organization that, among other things, screens, approves, supports, and supervises homes for foster children. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 1502, subd. (a)(4).) Plaintiffs and respondents C.F., E.F., and S.F. (plaintiffs) were sexually abused in a foster home approved and supervised by defendant and appellant Alternative Family Services, Inc. (defendant), an FFA. Plaintiffs sued defendant, as well as the foster parents, and a jury found defendant negligent. The jury awarded plaintiffs $24.7 million in damages, assigning 60 percent of the responsibility to defendant, 35 percent to the foster father who perpetrated the abuse, and 5 percent to the foster mother. * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts V and VI of the Discussion. 1  While both sides concede defendant owed plaintiffs a duty of care, they sharply disagree on the scope of that duty. Plaintiffs argue the trial court properly instructed the jury that defendant had a duty to protect them, without any limitations on that duty based on a consideration of the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland). Defendant contends that, under Rowland, the general duty of care should be restricted, such that it had no duty to protect plaintiffs from sexual abuse absent actual knowledge that the foster father presented a risk of such abuse. We disagree with both positions. As we discuss below, the defendant’s position restricts its duty of care too much and provides inadequate protection to foster children, one of the state’s most vulnerable populations. Plaintiffs’ position on the duty of care, which the trial court adopted, is too broad. It fails to recognize the important role FFAs play in our foster care system and to appropriately account for the connection between a defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered and moral blame for the harm. A proper balancing of the Rowland factors imposes liability on an FFA where it knew or should have known of a risk of abuse by a particular foster parent. The trial court’s instructions were in error because they permitted the jury to find defendant liable absent a showing it knew or should have known of the risk presented by the foster father. However, because defendant has not shown a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different verdict had it been properly instructed, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant is an FFA founded in 1978 that helps place children into foster homes. Defendant approves foster homes for placement and counties make the actual placements. 2  Plaintiffs entered the foster care system in April 2018, after their father left them in a car for 11 hours while he was at a casino. At the time of foster care placement, plaintiffs were six years old (C.F.), five years old (S.F.), and two years old (E.F.). After a screening process, defendant approved the home of Mark and Marta Martinez as a foster care placement on April 15. Plaintiffs were placed in the Martinez home on April 16. Plaintiffs were removed from the Martinezes’ home on June 25, 2018, after behavior by one of the children during a visit with plaintiffs’ biological father created a suspicion of sexual abuse. Plaintiffs were inter