Opinion ID: 1136818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the selection of a custodian and supervision of her activities

Text: The third and fourth causes of action involve County's selection of James' mother as custodian and its alleged failure adequately to supervise her activities. Plaintiffs assert that these matters are beyond the scope of any decision to release which is immunized by section 845.8, subdivision (a), but rather constitute mere ministerial implementations of a prior discretionary decision and accordingly are not immunized by section 820.2. We disagree. (3) Section 820.2 recites Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused. In Johnson we rejected a purely mechanical analysis of the term discretionary. Rather, we both emphasized and evaluated those policy considerations which underlie grants of immunity in order to determine which acts are protected. As we subsequently declared in McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 252, 260-261 [74 Cal. Rptr. 389, 449 P.2d 453], contentions such as those which are made here have frequently required judicial determination of the category into which the particular act falls: i.e., whether it was ministerial because it amounted `only to an obedience to orders, or the performance of a duty in which the officer is left no choice of his own,' or discretionary because it required `personal deliberation, decision and judgment.' ( Morgan v. County of Yuba (1964) 230 Cal. App.2d 938, 942-943 ... [citations].) The discretionary nature of the selection of custodians for potentially dangerous minors and the determination of the requisite level of governmental supervision for such custodians becomes apparent when the underlying policy considerations are analyzed. Choosing a proper custodian to direct the attempted rehabilitation of a minor with a prior history of antisocial behavior is a complex task. (See Simpson, Rehabilitation as the Justification of a Separate Juvenile Justice System (1976) 64 Cal.L.Rev. 984, 1003-1015; Nejelski, Diversion: Unleashing the Hound of Heaven? in Pursuing Justice for the Child (Rosenheim edit. 1976) p. 94, at pp. 104-116.) The determination involves a careful consideration and balancing of such factors as the protection of the public, the physical and psychological needs of the minor, the relative suitability of the home environment, the availability of other resources such as halfway houses and community centers, and the need to reintegrate the minor into the community. The decision, requiring as it does, comparisons, choices, judgments, and evaluations, comprises the very essence of the exercise of discretion and we conclude that such decisions are immunized under section 820.2. (4) Moreover, as previously noted, section 845.8 immunizes County from liability for Any injury resulting from determining... the terms and conditions of [a prisoner's] release.... As established in County of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (1971) 15 Cal. App.3d 751, 757 [93 Cal. Rptr. 406], immunity under this section is provided when the questioned acts involve policy decisions made prior to or as an integral part of the decision to release. (Accord, Whitcombe v. County of Yolo (1977) 73 Cal. App.3d 698, 713 [141 Cal. Rptr. 189].) The selection of James' mother as custodian and the degree of supervision to be exercised over her clearly involved such protected policy decisions. Accordingly, we conclude that County is immune from liability for its selection of a custodian as well as for its determination of the appropriate degree of supervision of the custodian's efforts.