Between February 2010 and May 2010, the plaintiff, a 12-year-old student, claimed that she was sexually molested on multiple occasions by her biological father. The 12-year-old girl, by and through her guardian ad litem, her adoptive mother, sued her biological father, the adoptive social worker, and the county of San Diego. The adoptive mother alleged that the county failed to discharge a mandatory duty in protecting her adoptive daughter from harm. The plaintiff’s biological father was convicted in criminal court and is currently serving a prison sentence. Thus, he did not appear at trial. The social worker was also ultimately let out of the case, so the matter continued against the county only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the county’s Child Welfare Services failed to disclose in the adoption report, and to the plaintiff’s adoptive mother, that the biological father had a substantiated history of sexual abuse, including alleged sexual assault against the plaintiff’s older brother. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the adoption report only included the father’s history of drug and physical abuse. The plaintiff’s adoptive mother claimed that had she known about the biological father’s history, she never would have allowed the plaintiff to see him. The county’s counsel argued that there was no breach of mandatory duty to the plaintiff under Family Code § 8706, which requires an adoption report to be provided to prospective adopting parents so that an informed decision could be made as to whether to adopt. Counsel contended that in this example, the adopting parent was not a plaintiff. The county’s counsel also argued that the county did not have a mandatory duty to disclose the alleged information in the adoption report and that the information was neither fraudulently concealed nor intentionally misrepresented in the adoption report. Thus, counsel argued that negligence could not be the basis for liability. Additionally, the county’s counsel argued that § 8706 did not impose a mandatory duty on the county to protect the plaintiff from the harm she incurred after adoption. Thus, counsel argued that the county was entitled to immunity., The 12-year-old girl claimed that she suffers severe emotional distress as a result of the abuse, requiring extensive ongoing therapy. Thus, she sought recovery of $2.78 million in emotional-distress damages.