SIERRA v. CITY OF MORRO BAY (1983)

This is an appeal from summary judgments granted in favor of respondent City of Morro Bay and County of San Luis Obispo.   The appellants, mother and daughter, filed suit seeking damages arising out of a three day detention of the child in a receiving home after she had been sexually molested by a family acquaintance.   The facts are not in dispute.

The appellant Sierra S. is the mother of appellant Cynthia G. and the companion of Paul Silver.   The three of them lived together in Morro Bay California.   On Saturday morning, October 27, 1979, the child, who was then three years old, was sexually molested by an acquaintance of the mother and Mr. Silver.   The molestation occurred in front of the Silver residence and was observed by a passerby, who reported it to the police.   Once the police arrived on the scene the child was transported by them to a hospital for a physical examination after which she was placed in protective custody in a receiving home until Tuesday, October 30, 1979, when the child was released to her mother.   The friend of the family not only immediately admitted to a sexual encounter with the child, he also stated to the police that the child had initiated the sexual activity by making a masturbation-type motion with her hand and said, “Let me do this to you like daddy showed me.”   No petition was ever filed by the county to establish juvenile court jurisdiction over the child.

The child was taken into custody pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 305, which provides in part that a peace officer may take such action when he “has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in section 300.”   Section 300 defines a person who is included in the section as one who is in need of proper and effective parental care or control and has no parent who is either willing or capable of actually exercising such care or control, or whose home is an unfit place for him by reason of neglect of his parents.

The question presented to us on appeal is whether the police officers and the social service workers of the Welfare Department had sufficient facts or circumstances presented to them to constitute reasonable cause for believing the minor came within the description of minors in sections 300(a) or (d) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.   We believe they did.

 Reasonable cause is defined as being a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion that a specified state of facts exist.  (People v. Hutchins (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 406, 411, 161 Cal.Rptr. 48.)   The existence of reasonable cause for believing a state of facts exists requires an objective standard of reasonableness.  (People v. Jackson (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 306, 309, 74 Cal.Rptr. 40.)

 In dependency proceedings, the governmental role is the protection of minor children by proper exercise of the state's police power.   In Ginsberg v. New York (1968) 390 U.S. 629, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195, the United States Supreme Court recognized the well-being of children within a state is a proper subject within the state constitutional regulatory powers.   In In re Michael S. (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 348, 363, 179 Cal.Rptr. 546, the court set forth the rule that the dependency status of a child is civil in nature and that in dependency proceedings the welfare of the minor is the paramount concern of the court and the parents do not represent a competing interest in this respect.

 In this case the police officers and social workers were confronted with the fact that a three year old child was living in circumstances that permitted her to be sexually molested by a friend of her mother and her mother's male companion who was implicated in such type conduct by statements of the child narrated by the molester to the officers.   As it turned out, the statements of the molester may have been false or inaccurate, but the officers were confronted with what appeared to be a position of peril for the child and were obligated to take action.   Considered objectively, the situation that was presented created a reasonable belief that the child might be one described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.   The conduct of the officers and social workers was reasonable, justified and appropriate.

 The governmental role in protecting children cannot be inhibited by threats of law suits when the acts taken are reasonable and within its police powers.   This is so even though the facts which formed the basis upon which the action was taken may be eventually established to be untrue.   As stated in In re Phillip B. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 796, 801, 156 Cal.Rptr. 48, “State officials may interfere in family matters to safeguard the child's health, educational development and emotional well-being.”   Liability cannot be imposed on governmental agencies when the interference is based on a reasonable belief of the need for such action.

The judgment is affirmed.

ABBE, Associate Justice.

STONE, P.J., and GILBERT, J., concur. Hearing denied;  BIRD, C.J., dissenting.