?ll-034' 08:0? FRDM- BOOTH 310?540-0483 T422 Roger E. Booth-? Bar No. 154691 Carly L. Sanchez Bar No. 300469 . Andrew S. Pruitt 302222 I BOOTH d: KOSK .1 - - - 21250 Hawthorne Blvd, Suite 475 Eupglg?fj?ng wiggl' grnla Torrance, CA 90503 310540-0433 11 131201 7 meganl Attorneys far Plaintiff By Fax SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CaseNo. MCC1701255 A CQUELYN H., a minor by and-tln'ough her guardian ad litem, Marla C. Mahoney Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, VICTORIA GARCIA, FATIMA VILLA, MAR-IA SANTANA, NICOLE SPARKS, AMBER PRATBR, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendants. V?s?f Plaintiff JACQUELYN 1-1., a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Marla C. Mahoney, alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff Jacquelyn H. .is a miner, a resident of the County of Riverside and a dependent of the Juvenile Court of the County of Riverside. Her date of birth is November .11., 2002. A ?ctitious name is being used for her in order to preteether privacy as a victim of sexual abuse. On February 23, 2017, theiuvenile Court appointed attorney Marla C. Mahoaey as acquelyn?s guardian ad litern with regard to any lawsuit arising out of sexual abuse suffered by Jacquelyn. 2. At the time of the events detailed below, defendants Victoria Garcia, Fatima Villa, Pleadings\Complaiut.wpd Complaint for lineages Maria Santana, Nicole Sparks, and Amber Prater were social workers employed by defendant County of Riverside in the Children?s Services Division of the Department of Public Social Services Plaintiff is informed and believes that these individuals worked out of DPSS of?ces located in Riverside, Moreno Valley and Hemet. These individuals, and the County of Riverside as a whole, will sometimes jointly be referred to in this complaint as ?Defendants.? 3. Plaintiff, through her guardian ad litem, presented a governmental claim to the County of Riverside on May 10, 2017, and the County of Riverside rejected the claim on June 27, 2017. 4. The true names of defendants sued as Does 1 through 50 are unknown to plaintiff. These Doe defendants were the agents or employees of other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment or are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff. 5. Each defendant is the agent, servant and/0r employee of the other defendants, and each defendant was acting within the scope of his, her or its authority as an agent, servant and/or employee of the other defendants. Defendants, and each of them, are individuals, corporations, partnerships and other entities which engaged in, joined in and conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out the tortious and unlawful activities described in this complaint, and defendants, and each of them, rati?ed the acts of the other defendants as described in this Complaint. Defendants? Failure to Protect acquelvn from Sexual Abuse and Severe Neglect 6. Between 2003 and 2010, there were approximately 20 Riverside DPSS investigations of the home where Jacquelyn lived with her mother and two siblings. These investigations included allegations of domestic violence, physical and emotional abuse and neglect, and in many instances acquelyn?s mother was the alleged perpetrator. 7. In or about March 2014, when Jacquelyn was 11 years old, she disclosed that she was being repeatedly raped and sexually abused by her mother?s boyfriend, Deon Welch, who was living in the same apartment with Jacquelyn, her mother and her siblings. This resulted in an emergency response referral being made to the Riverside DPSS. The Hemet Police Department Pleadingleomplaint.wpd performed an investigation, which included a interview of Jacquelyn. Ms. Garcia attended that interview. Jacquelyn disclosed in detail the sexual abuse in?icted upon her by Mr. Welch. 8. The Hemet PD and DPSS concluded that acquelyn?s allegations were credible and substantiated, and both agencies advised acquelyn?s mother that she should immediately take steps to remove Welch from the home and keep him away from her daughter. acquelyn?s mother obtained a restraining order against Welch. The Hemet PD attempted to locate Welch, but was unsuccessful. acquelyn?s mother told the Hemet PD and DPSS that Welch had moved to Mexico. Defendants closed their investigation in June 2014, and Ms. Garcia falsely stated in her report that the sexual abuse allegations were ?inconclusive.? Shortly thereafter, acquelyn?s mother dismissed the restraining order. Welch returned to the home and began raping and sexually abusing Jacquelyn again. 9. In October 2014, DPSS social worker Santana discovered the shocking fact that Welch had returned to the home, with the blessing of acquelyn?s mother. She also learned that Jacquelyn was exhibiting severe anger issues and various other consistent with sexual abuse. By this time it was, or should have been, abundantly clear to Defendants that acquelyn?s mother had absolutely no ability to protect Jacquelyn from harm and that she was severely neglecting her daughter. She no longer even acknowledged that any sexual abuse had occurred. Meanwhile, Welch?s raping and sexually abusing of Jacquelyn continued unabated. Jacquelyn lost all faith in Defendants? ability or willingness to protect her from harm and came to believe that there was no point in disclosing the abuse to anyone else. i 10. Faced with overwhelming evidence of ongoing severe neglect and sexual abuse and an unsuitable home, Defendants did nothing to try to remove Welch from the home, to dissuade him from staying there, to alert the Hemet PD of his whereabouts or to protect Jacquelyn. In fact, Defendants sanctioned Welch?s continued presence in the home by asking him to sign (as one of acquelyn?s ?caregivers?) a safety plan that they drafted and by requesting that he supervise the children until acquelyn?s mother stabilized on medication. These actions served to ratify Welch?s abuse of Jacquelyn, to embolden Welch to continue with the abuse Pleadings\Complaint.wpd unfettered and to reinforce the false belief of acquelyn?s mother (who has limited intellectual capacity) that her daughter was not at risk living with Welch. In or about February 2015, despite having acknowledged that Welch?s presence in the home presented a risk of sexual abuse to Jacquelyn and despite having knowledge that acquelyn?s mother allowed Welch to have direct, unsupervised access to Jacquelyn, DPSS concluded its pending investigation of the home without taking any meaningful action and left Jacquelyn to her own devices for the next 19 months. 11. Welch?s repeated raping and sexually abusing of Jacquelyn continued, on a nearly daily basis, into September 2016, at which time it was discovered that Jacquelyn (who was still just 13 years old) was pregnant. Jacquelyn gave birth in November 2016 and gave up the baby for adoption. Blood tests showed that Welch was the father of the baby. 12. As a result of over two years of repeated sexual abuse and the failure of Defendants to protect her, Jacquelyn suffered severe physical, emotional and harm that will affect her for the rest of her life. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - Violation of Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act 13. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference all paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 14. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 11165.7 and other provisions of the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act Defendants, by and through their employees and agents, are ?mandated reporters? with regard to any reasonable suspicion of child abuse, neglect or an unsuitable home. Defendants knew or reasonably suspected that plaintiff had been subjected to repeated sexual abuse and severe neglect and was living in an unsuitable home, and this gave rise to a duty to report this knowledge and suspicion, including each separate instance of abuse and neglect (pursuant to Penal Code section 11166). This duty also included cross-reporting to law enforcement and the District Attorney?s office. Defendants failed to make such reports. In particular, Defendants failed to report the suspected sexual abuse of Jacquelyn when they learned that Welch had returned to the home in October 2014. Moreover, Defendants failed to properly train their employees regarding the duties of mandated reporters. 15. Had Defendants properly reported the abuse and neglect of plaintiff and the fact that she was living in an unsuitable home, this likely would have lead to law enforcement conducting a further investigation, arresting Welch and removing him from the home. It also would have encouraged Welch to once again leave the home out of fear of being arrested. This would have prevented Jacquelyn from being subjected to two years of further abuse and becoming pregnant. 16. CANRA, as well as own rules, also require that, in response to each referral of abuse or neglect, DPSS reach a meaningful conclusion as to whether the allegations are substantiated, inconclusive or unfounded, set forth that conclusion in writing and report all substantiated ?ndings to the California Department of Justice (with notice to the perpetrator). Defendants violated this requirement by falsely stating that the sexual abuse allegations involving Jacquelyn were inconclusive, even though it is clear that they actually found them to be substantiated. This false ?inconclusive? label made it far less likely that social workers, mental health professionals and others who subsequently interacted with Jacquelyn would take the sexual abuse allegations against Welch seriously and take appropriate action. It also gave Welch and acquelyn?s mother the false belief that Welch had been exonerated of the allegations. Pursuant to Government Code sections 815.2(a) and 820 and Evidence Code section 669, the individual social worker defendants are liable for violating CANRA and the County of Riverside is vicariously liable for these violations. 18. As a result of Defendants? violation of CANRA, plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as alleged herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - Breach of Mandatory Duties 19. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference all paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth fully herein. 20. In addition to CANRA, Defendants violated various other mandatory duties intended to protect children from abuse and neglect and are therefore liable for plaintiff?s injuries Pleadings\Complaint.wpd pursuant to Government Code section 815.6. These mandatory duties included, but were not limited to, the following: (0) (6) 21. Welfare Institutions Code Section 16501.1, which required a case plan to ensure that Jacquelyn received protection and proper care and that appropriate services were provided to Jacquelyn and her mother, with the child?s health and safety being the paramount concern; California Department of Social Services regulation 31-125.1, which required DPSS to determine whether Jacquelyn was at risk of abuse or neglect and in need of child welfare services or removal from the home DPSS regulation 31-205, which required DPSS to gather, evaluate and document assessment information pertaining to other signi?cant persons who were known to reside in the same home as plaintiff, including, but not limited to, sexual perpetrator Deon Welch; CDSS regulation 31-205, which required DPS S. to gather, evaluate and document information as to whether Jacquelyn could safely remain in her family home; CDSS regulation 31-310, which required DPSS to monitor acquelyn?s physical and emotional condition and to take necessary action to ensure that her protective needs continued to be met; CDSS regulation 31-320, which required DPSS to adequately conduct face-to- face contacts with Jacquelyn and to assess her safety and well-being; CDSS regulation 31-335, which required DPSS to have contact with other professionals working with Jacquelyn and her mother in order to monitor the safety of the child and obtain their perception of the child?s well-being and in order to determine whether the parent is following through with her commitments; CDSS regulation 31-501, which required DPSS to report every known or suspected instance of child abuse and/or neglect to law enforcement. Defendants breached each of the aforementioned mandatory duties by, among other acts and omissions, allowing plaintiff to remain in a house with a known sexual predator, failing to report the ongoing abuse and neglect, failing to conduct a meaningful investigation concerning the abuse and neglect and failing to provide necessary child welfare services. These breaches of duty contributed to the ongoing sexual abuse of Jacquelyn and the eventual pregnancy. 22. As a result of Defendants? violation of mandatory duties, plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as alleged herein. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - Breach of Dutv Arising Under Special Relationship 23. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference all paragraphs of this complaint as if ?illy set forth herein. 24. A special relationship was established between Defendants, on the one hand, and both Jacquelyn and her mother, on the other hand, by virtue of Defendants having entered upon the task of protecting Jacquelyn. This induced reliance and dependence on the part of Jacquelyn and her mother, who reasonably believed that Defendants would protect Jacqueline. 25. Defendants increased the danger to Jacquelyn by ratifying, sanctioning and encouraging Welch?s continued presence in the home and his ongoing abuse of Jacquelyn and by giving Welch and acquelyn?s mother the impression that Welch had been exonerated of the sexual abuse allegations, all of which lead to his continued presence in the home and increased his. ability to sexually abuse Jacquelyn. Defendants knew or should have known that acquelyn?s mother had diminished mental capacity and little or no ability to protect her children and was therefore dependent upon Defendants to take control of the situation involving Welch. Defendants also increased the danger to Jacquelyn by requiring her to go through the dif?cult process of describing the abuse in an interview and undergoing an intrusive medical examination and then proceeding to abandon her despite the fact that her allegations were clearly substantiated and her mother was not capable of being protective. This sent the strong message to 11?year-old Jacquelyn that no one believed what she was saying about the sexual abuse, that no one was there to protect her and that there was no point in ever disclosing the abuse again. 26. As a result of the Special relationship between Defendants and Jacquelyn and her Pleadings\Complaint.wpd .12mother, Defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable care. Defendants breached that duty, as discussed above, by failing to take meaningful steps to protect Jacqueline from sexual abuse. Among other acts and omissions, Defendants falsely stated that the sexual abuse allegations against Welch were inconclusive, allowed both Welch and Jacquelyn to remain in the home, encouraged Welch to remain in the home, failed to report the sexual abuse to DPS S, law enforcement or the District Attorney?s of?ce and failed to provide any ongoing supervision of Jacquelyn. Defendants never seriously considered trying to remove Jacquelyn from the home and never made a discretionary decision to allow her to remain in the home. They simply refused to do their jobs and instead looked for any opportunity to close their ?les and avoid taking meaningful action. 27. As a result of Defendants? breaches of the duties arising under the special relationship, plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as alleged herein. Punitive Damages Allegations against Individual Social Work_e_r_s 28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference all paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 29. Defendants Garcia, Villa, Santana, Sparks and Prater, all of whom were employed as DPSS social workers during the events in question and were acting Within the course and scope of their employment, are liable for punitive damages by virtue of having committed the acts and omissions discussed above with oppression. Although the social workers? conduct was consistent with how DPSS had trained them and although they believed that they were acting in the best interests of their employer, their acts and omissions were despicable and subjected Jacquelyn to cruel. and unjust hardship in knowing disregard of her rights. 30. The social workers? job was to protect children whose parents were not capable of protecting them. Yet their overriding concern, in their dealings with Jacquelyn, her mother and Welch, was to expend as little time and DPSS resources as possible on this matter and to conclude their investigations as quickly as possible. In the process, they learned that Jacquelyn was likely being raped by Welch, that acquelyn?s mother was not capable of being protective, Pleadings\Complaint.wpd that the sexual abuse would likely continue unabated and that they were the only hope that Jacquelyn had of being protected from the abuse. However, they failed to provide any protection to Jacquelyn from this known danger. In fact, they made the situation worse by encouraging Welch to remain in the home, encouraging acquelyn?s mother to believe that Welch had been exonerated and discouraging Jacquelyn from ever coming forward again. They went so far as to treat Welch as a ?caretaker? of Jacqueline and give him a role in supposedly protecting Jacqueline (his victim) in the case plan that they drafted. They also withheld critical information from the Hemet Police Department about Welch?s whereabouts. When the social workers failed to carry out their duties to report and act upon the sexual abuse and closed their investigations, they knew that they were likely subjecting Jacquelyn to ongoing sexual abuse, but they turned a blind to the incalculable harm that this would cause this young girl. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. For compensatory damages according to proof; - 2. For costs of suit; 3. For interest according to law; 4. For punitive damages against defendants Victoria Garcia, Fatima Villa, Maria Santana, Nicole Sparks and Amber Prater; 5. For such other relief as is fair, just, and equitable. Dated: November 2, 2017 BOOTH KOSKOFF . Roger E. Booth Attorneys for Plaintiff Pleadings\Complaint.wpd JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631, plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. Dated: November 2, 2017 BOOTH KOSKOFF By Roger B. Booth Attorneys for Plaintiff Pleadings\Complaint.wpd 1