2025 NY Slip Op 00903

Municipalities owe a duty of care to foster children in their legal custody to protect them from reasonably foreseeable harm arising from their placement with foster parents.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a county, by assuming legal custody of a foster child, owes that child a duty of care. The case involved a plaintiff who, while in foster care selected by Cayuga County, suffered abuse. The Court determined that the special duty doctrine, typically applied to limit governmental liability, did not apply in this instance because the county had assumed a custodial relationship with the child. Therefore, the county was obligated to protect the child from foreseeable risks. This ruling reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, which had dismissed the case, and clarified the extent of municipal liability to children in foster care.

Facts

In 1974, three-month-old Jackie Weisbrod-Moore was placed in foster care by Cayuga County. She alleged that over the next seven years, beginning when she was 18 months old, she suffered severe physical and sexual abuse by her foster parent, including broken bones and a head injury. Weisbrod-Moore sued Cayuga County, alleging negligence in the selection, retention, and supervision of her foster placement. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it owed no special duty to Weisbrod-Moore. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed.

Procedural History

The case began in Supreme Court, where the County’s motion to dismiss was denied. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the County owed no special duty under the circumstances. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal, ultimately reversing the Appellate Division and reinstating the case.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a municipality, by assuming legal custody of a foster child, owes that child a common-law duty of care to protect them from foreseeable harm.

Holding

1. Yes, because by assuming legal custody, the municipality has a duty to protect foster children from foreseeable harm.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court found that the special duty doctrine, typically applied to limit municipal liability, did not apply when the government has assumed custody of a person. The Court cited prior cases involving incarcerated persons, juveniles in delinquency facilities, and schoolchildren. In such cases, the government’s actions limit the individual’s capacity for self-protection, creating a duty of care. The Court distinguished the foster care situation from cases where the government’s role was more limited. The government, through its legal custody, stands in place of the parents and guardians, and must take action with reasonable care. The Court rejected the argument that a distinction should be made between physical custody versus legal custody in this context, emphasizing that municipalities have a continuing responsibility to safeguard the child from foreseeable harm from the foster placement. The Court held that the duty extends to protecting a foster child from