In 2010, the plaintiff, a 7-year-old girl, was allegedly sexually abused while living with her mother in El Monte. Her mother was under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services for another matter that same year. The little girl claimed that the mother’s adult, male friend sexually abused her a number of times while he was allowed to live at the house. In 2012, the little girl, then 9 years old, disclosed the abuse for the first time, causing law enforcement to become involved. Four men and the child’s mother were arrested, and they were all convicted of felonies and sent to prison. The minor plaintiff, through her biological father who gained custody after the child’s disclosure, sued the operator of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, the county of Los Angeles. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that child protective workers with the DCFS learned that the plaintiff’s mother was allowing an adult, male friend to live in the home and share a bedroom with the plaintiff, who was 7, and that the man had a prior criminal charge for sexual battery of a minor, but that the workers failed to intervene. Counsel argued that child protective workers are “mandatory reporters” of suspected child abuse under California law, per the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, but that the workers failed to report their suspicions of sexual abuse to either the DCFS or law enforcement, as required by law. Instead, the child protective workers told the plaintiff’s mother that the man must move out of the house and could not be left alone with the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the workers later learned that the man was still at the home and had never moved out and that rather than reporting their findings, the workers closed the DCFS case without ever reporting suspected child abuse. As a result, the man continued to sexually abuse the plaintiff for another two years. In addition, the plaintiff claimed that her mother allowed other men to either live or hang out in their home and that at least three of those men also sexually abused her, which her mother allowed in exchange for money and drugs, between 2010 and 2012. The plaintiff’s standard of care expert for child protective services testified that the fact that the adult male living in the home in 2010 only had an arrest, and not a conviction, was enough reasonable suspicion to require DCFS to report suspected child abuse. He also opined that although the plaintiff denied that she was abused multiple times, and no other family member or mandated reporter in contact with the family suspected sex abuse of the plaintiff in 2010, he would have requested a forensic interview and medical examination of the minor. However, during cross-examination, the expert admitted that he had never removed from a home a child whom denied being abused. Defense counsel argued that there was no evidence that DCFS had any knowledge of anything going on in the home after its case was closed by the Juvenile Court in 2010. Counsel contended that the social workers asked the plaintiff multiple times if she was being molested and that the plaintiff denied multiple times that she was being abused. Counsel also contended that the social workers interviewed the plaintiff’s mother, grandmother and aunt and that they all claimed that they did not suspect any abuse. Counsel further contended that although the man never moved out of the home, the social workers were told by the plaintiff and her mother that he had moved out in 2010, and the mother signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury attesting that he had moved out of the home. Defense counsel argued that, based on their findings, the social workers did not suspect child abuse by the adult, male friend and that no other mandatory reporter — including the plaintiff’s teacher, therapist or family preservation worker — suspected any abuse. Counsel further argued that the social workers were not required to report under CANRA and that they properly fulfilled their mandatory duties as social workers by investigating the alleged abuse, making regular visits to the home and securing the mother’s affidavit under penalty of perjury that the male friend had moved out. The defense’s standard of care expert for child protective services opined that the DCFS social workers acted appropriately in their investigation of the plaintiff’s family and that they immediately addressed the issue of the man sleeping in the same room as the plaintiff in 2010 by requiring the mother to make other sleeping arrangements, of which the mother agreed. The expert also opined that the DCFS was bound by privacy laws and could not inform the mother of the specifics of the man’s prior arrest, but that the DCFS acted appropriately in having the mother request that the man move out and then confirmed that he did move out of the home by making follow up visits, having the mother sign an affidavit that he moved out, and questioning other mandated reporters involved with the family. The expert further opined that as the plaintiff denied being abused and no other mandated reporter had concerns that she was being abused, the social workers did not have reasonable suspicion of child abuse and could not detain the child from her mother. In addition, the expert opined that the DCFS did not have the power or authority to detain a child, or subject them to a forensic interview or medical examination based on the facts known at the time., The plaintiff claimed she suffered extreme sexual abuse from ages 7 to 9. She claimed that as a result, she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and a host of other serious emotional issues. She has undergone extensive therapy since her disclosure of abuse at the age of 9 and she had a six-month stay at a residential facility for treatment of her psychological harm. The plaintiff, who was 15 years old at the time of trial, now lives with her father and continues to undergo therapy. The plaintiff’s psychology expert testified that the plaintiff suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and persistent depressive disorder. The plaintiff waived her claim for past medical costs at trial, but sought recovery of future medical costs and non-economic damages for her past and future emotional harm. The defense’s psychiatry expert opined that the plaintiff suffers from mild post-traumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, dysthymia, a persistent depressive disorder and an unspecified anxiety disorder.