ESTATE OF KRISTOFER FERREYRA, BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, CHRISTIAN FERREYRA, et al. vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

25CV138211: ESTATE OF KRISTOFER FERREYRA, BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, CHRISTIAN FERREYRA, et al. vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint; filed by County of Alameda's Department of Children and Family Services, a public entity (Defendant) CRS# 956921164220 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 09/09/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Demurrer filed by County of Alameda's Department of Children and Family Services, a public entity on 07/20/2026 is Sustained without Leave to Amend.

The Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint by Defendant County of Alameda, also incorrectly named as County of Alameda’s Department of Children and Family Services, (“the County”), is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

This case arises from the death by Fentanyl overdose of decedent Kristofer Ferreyra on October 18, 2023, shortly before decedent’s second birthday. The overdose occurred while decedent was in the custody of his stepfather Frank Avina.

Plaintiffs again allege, on information and belief, that in November 2022 unidentified employee(s) or agent(s) of the County responded to a report of suspected child abuse of decedent at Avina’s residence. Plaintiffs allege the County employee(s) took several months to complete a basis assessment determining whether decedent should remain at Avina’s residence, rather than within 48 hours of contact which is when Plaintiffs contend such assessments “are normally due”. County employee(s) ultimately failed to remove decedent from Avina’s residence. (Second Amended Complaint, paragraph 32.)

Plaintiffs further allege, on information and belief, that some unidentified employee(s) or agent(s) of the County participated in police raids at Avina’s residence on December 12, 2022 and again on June 12, 2023. During those raids, the County employee(s) learned that Avina was in possession of, and using, illegal drugs in the presence of decedent. Plaintiffs allege the County employee(s) had a “mandatory duty” to remove decedent from Avina’s residence. (Second Amended Complaint, paragraphs 30-31.)

The Second Amended Complaint alleges a single cause of action, for negligence. Second Amended Complaint paragraph 47 alleges 14 mandatory duties that the County employee(s) allegedly breached by failing to remove decedent from Avina’s residence.

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity (like County) is not liable for an injury. (Government Code § 815(a). A public entity may be vicariously liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of the public entity’s employee within the scope of employment, if the act or omission would give rise to a cause of action against the employee. (Government Code § 815.2.) 25CV138211: ESTATE OF KRISTOFER FERREYRA, BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, CHRISTIAN FERREYRA, et al. vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint; filed by County of Alameda's Department of Children and Family Services, a public entity (Defendant) CRS# 956921164220 in Department 24 Generally, a person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort for failure to take affirmative action to protect another unless there is some relationship between them that gives rise to a duty to act. (See, e.g., Regents of the University of California v.

Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 619.) Plaintiffs do not allege that there was a special relationship between decedent and the unidentified County employee(s) giving rise to a duty to undertake any of the “specific obligations” referenced in Second Amended Complaint, paragraph 47(B)-(N). None of those “specific obligations” are based on any statutory duty, and virtually all of them appear to be based on actions that involve the exercise of discretion and would be immune from liability. (See Government Code § 820.2; see also Christina C. v.

County of Orange (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1381, holding that the decision whether or not to remove a child from a parent’s care involves discretionary issues and is immune from liability under § 820.2.) Plaintiffs’ allegation that unidentified County employees had a special relationship with decedent solely because they purportedly had the legal authority to arrest Avina or decedent’s mother, or to remove decedent from his home after reports of child abuse (see Second Amended Complaint paragraph 46), is not supported by any applicable case law.

To the contrary, police officers are not in a special relationship with persons in their jurisdiction even when the officers are aware of the risk to a specific potential victim. (See Regents, supra, 4 Cal.5th at 621 and the cases cited therein.) Plaintiffs cite no case law indicating that the rule is any different for DCFS personnel.

The Court will assume, for the purposes of this demurrer, that an alleged violation of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (“CANRA”, Penal Code § 11164 et seq.), alleged in Second Amended Complaint paragraph 47(A), may provide a statutory basis for a negligence claim. But Plaintiffs have again failed to allege facts demonstrating that any County employee(s) failed to comply with CANRA. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that unidentified Does 1-10 (which may include employees of either the City of Fremont or the County) violated CANRA because they were aware of drug use in decedent’s home but allowed decedent to stay in the home. (See Second Amended Complaint, paragraphs 48 and 52.) CANRA imposes reporting obligations on mandated reporters who know or reasonably suspect a child has been a victim of abuse or neglect; it does not require that the child be removed from the child’s home.

Even accepting as true Plaintiffs’ allegation in Second Amended Complaint paragraph 52 that some unidentified County agent or employee did not “timely” respond to a child abuse report or “timely” complete a basic assessment determining whether decedent should remain in his home, Plaintiff does not demonstrate that failing to “timely” complete a basic assessment is a violation of CANRA. Penal Code § 11166(k) provides that a law enforcement agency shall “immediately, or as soon as practically possible” report suspected child abuse or neglect to the district attorney’s office, but (1) Plaintiff has not alleged that the unidentified County employee or agent who responded to the November 2022 child abuse report was an employee of a law enforcement agency subject to § 11166(k), and (2) Plaintiff has not indicated when the unidentified County

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV138211: ESTATE OF KRISTOFER FERREYRA, BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, CHRISTIAN FERREYRA, et al. vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint; filed by County of Alameda's Department of Children and Family Services, a public entity (Defendant) CRS# 956921164220 in Department 24 employee or agent responded to the child abuse report, or how. Plaintiffs again fail to allege facts demonstrating that any County employee or agent violated CANRA, or how any purported violation of CANRA caused or contributed to decedent’s death.

Plaintiffs have already been given two opportunities to amend their pleading. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how they would be able to cure the defects identified in this order (and in the two orders on the County’s prior two demurrers.) Plaintiffs’ request for further leave to amend is therefore denied.

The Court will prepare the order. Defendant County of Alameda is DISMISSED from this case, with prejudice.

Department 24 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting

The Judicial Officer prefers all parties to be on camera, and for parties to log in using their full name (first and last). This can be tested before the hearing at https://zoom.us/test.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/my/department24?pwd=bWVtSER4blo0ODVrZVN3N0Fua2JmZz0 9

Meeting ID: 160 6661 8377