CHILD ADVOCATES BLAST RULING COUNTY HELD BLAMELESS IN FOSTER-CARE CASE.

Byline: Troy Anderson Staff Writer

In an attempt to overturn an appellate court opinion that county government is not responsible for the safety of a child abused in foster care, a Century City attorney is expected to petition the California Supreme Court today.

On Sept. 30, the state Court of Appeal rejected the case of a 14-year- old, identified only as ``Terrell R.,'' who was allegedly sexually abused in foster care. The court concluded that the boy's county social worker and Los Angeles County government were immune from liability for the ``discretionary acts of the social worker in placing and supervising'' the boy.

The boy's attorney, Linda Wallace Pate, said the ruling effectively means that county social workers have no responsibility, obligation or duty to protect foster children and that foster children have no right to be safe in county government's care.

She said the case could set a precedent, preventing people from successfully suing the government for the physical and sexual abuse of children in foster care.

``This decision has unwritten 25 years of state and national child welfare laws enacted to protect foster children,'' Pate said. ``If left standing, it would be detrimental to the interests of foster children, resulting in unspeakable acts of abuse, and most certainly foster-child deaths will rise dramatically.''

Officials in the County Counsel's Office said Pate is interpreting the case too broadly and they don't believe it will set a precedent.

Raine Ritchey, an attorney and deputy to Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, said the Court of Appeal dismissed county government from the lawsuit because the county social worker had no knowledge of the foster parent's alleged abuse.

``The social worker did everything correct,'' Ritchey said. ``She visited the child as mandated, and there was no indication of sexual molestation during the visits. The foster family agency is part of the case. They may be liable.''

In a letter submitted to the Supreme Court, supporting a review of the case, Children's Advocacy Institute attorney Debra Back and University of San Diego School of Law professor Robert C. Fellmeth wrote that the appellate court's ruling is detrimental to all foster children in California.

``The decision has led to shock and disbelief among child advocates from several states - and no small degree of embarrassment for those from California,'' they jointly wrote in the letter. ``Begging the court's indulgence for a comment that may seem melodramatic: Children will die as a result of the weakening or overriding of these hard-won mandates.''

According to court documents, a foster family agency placed the boy with a foster parent in 1999. The boy was removed from the home after an agency social worker learned the boy was sharing a bed with his foster parent and called a child-abuse hotline.

The foster parent was later acquitted of molestation charges.

A representative of the boy sued the county as well as the foster family agency in August 2000, alleging the county social worker knew or should have known that the foster parent was not properly certified by the foster family agency and was not authorized to take any children. The boy also accused the county social worker of failing to supervise him adequately.

The boy was allegedly sexually abused during the three-month placement, and the county social worker did not become aware of the abuse until notified by the foster family agency social worker who had pulled the boy from the home, according to the appellate opinion.