Bradley v. County of Sonoma

Background

Randi Bradley and A.B. sued the County of Sonoma and other defendants, claiming that defendants violated their constitutional rights when they separated Bradley and A.B. The opinion states that Bradley obtained guardianship of A.B. in May 2008 and adopted her in December 2016.

In October 2018, defendants began investigating after learning that Bradley’s ex-husband, Brian Brown, had made a sexually explicit video in 2017. Brown was a registered sex offender based on a 2006 indecent-exposure incident that did not involve children. Defendants decided to remove A.B. from Bradley’s home, and a judge granted the removal order. A.B. spent one night at a children’s home and was then placed with a family friend. The separation lasted 20 days before the case was dropped.

The parties later reached a $400,000 settlement. The opinion states that Bradley would receive $150,000 and A.B. would receive $50,000 after attorney’s fees and costs, which represented 50% of the settlement under the retainer agreement. Of A.B.’s share, $15,000 would be placed in a blocked savings account that she could not access until age 18, and $35,000 would be used to purchase a structured-settlement annuity. The settlement also included new training requirements for Sonoma County social workers working in Emergency Response.

Court’s Review

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) gives a district court a special duty to independently determine whether a settlement involving a minor is in the minor’s best interests. The court must decide whether the settlement and the minor’s net recovery are fair and reasonable, considering the facts, the minor’s specific claim, and recoveries in similar cases.

The court found the proposed $50,000 settlement fair and reasonable. In evaluating the risks, it considered the history involving Brown and the deference generally given to government actors such as social workers. The court also considered counsel’s explanation that Bradley and A.B. would have faced difficulty at trial because they cared about Brown and would have had to challenge his character.

The court found the amount reasonable in light of A.B.’s age at the time of removal, her emotional maturity, her prior experience staying at the children’s home, the relatively short separation, and the absence of long-lasting injuries asserted in the settlement materials. It also considered the additional social-worker training and settlements in similar cases.

Disposition

The court concluded that the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise intended to benefit A.B. It granted plaintiffs’ motion to approve the settlement. This order approved the minor’s settlement; it did not decide the underlying constitutional claims on their merits.