The California Court of Appeal has upheld a jury's decision that found Alternative Family Services, Inc. (AFS) negligent in a case involving the sexual abuse of three foster children. The court's ruling, filed on June 4, 2026, confirms a $24.7 million damages award to the plaintiffs, C.F., E.F., and S.F., who were abused while placed in a foster home approved by AFS. This case highlights the responsibilities of foster family agencies (FFAs) in protecting vulnerable children.
The case, identified as C.F. v. Alternative Family Services, Inc., stems from a disturbing incident where the plaintiffs were sexually abused by their foster father, Mark Martinez, while under the care of AFS. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of FFAs in ensuring the safety of children in their care and the potential consequences of failing to meet this duty.
In 2018, C.F., E.F., and S.F. entered the foster care system after being removed from their biological father's custody. They were placed in the Martinez home, which had been approved by AFS. Following reports of suspicious behavior, the children were removed from the home, and investigations revealed that Mark Martinez had sexually abused them. He later confessed and pleaded guilty to the charges.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against AFS and the Martinezes, claiming negligence on the part of the agency for approving the foster home and failing to supervise the children adequately. During the trial, evidence was presented showing that AFS had violated several California Department of Social Services (CDSS) regulations in its approval process for the Martinezes, including failing to conduct proper interviews and assessments.
The jury found AFS 60 percent responsible for the abuse, with Mark Martinez assigned 35 percent of the blame and his wife, Marta Martinez, 5 percent. The jury's decision was based on the agency's negligence in approving the foster home and its inadequate supervision of the children while they were placed there.
The court ruled that while both parties agreed AFS owed a duty of care to the children, there was a disagreement regarding the scope of that duty. The plaintiffs argued that AFS had a broad duty to protect the children, while AFS contended that its duty should be limited to situations where it had actual knowledge of a risk of abuse. The court disagreed with both positions, stating, "the defendant’s position restricts its duty of care too much and provides inadequate protection to foster children, one of the state’s most vulnerable populations."
Ultimately, the court concluded that AFS had a duty to protect the children from sexual abuse where it knew or should have known of a risk presented by the foster father. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, stating that AFS had not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict had it been properly instructed on the scope of its duty.
The ruling has significant implications for the foster care system in California. It reinforces the responsibility of FFAs to ensure the safety of children in their care and sets a precedent for future cases involving negligence claims against such agencies. The court emphasized that protecting foster children from sexual abuse is a paramount goal of society and that FFAs play a crucial role in achieving this objective.
The ruling also raises concerns about the potential impact on FFAs in California, particularly regarding insurance coverage. In recent years, many FFAs have faced challenges in obtaining liability insurance due to increasing claims and changing market conditions. The court noted that the availability of insurance is a critical factor in determining the ability of FFAs to operate effectively and protect vulnerable children.
As a result of this ruling, FFAs may need to reevaluate their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with regulations and to enhance the safety of foster children. The decision could lead to increased scrutiny of the approval and monitoring processes for foster homes, as well as a greater emphasis on training and support for foster parents.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether AFS will appeal the ruling. The court's decision could have lasting effects on the foster care system in California and may prompt legislative changes to address the challenges faced by FFAs in providing safe environments for foster children.
The case highlights the ongoing need for vigilance and accountability in the foster care system, ensuring that children are protected from harm and that agencies fulfill their critical responsibilities to safeguard their well-being.