The Court of Appeals of Georgia has ruled in favor of Sarah and Jeffrey Morton, reversing a lower court's decision that granted summary judgment to Eagle Ranch Foundation, Inc. The ruling comes after the Mortons filed a lawsuit against the nonprofit organization following the sexual assault of their five-year-old son, T. M. II, by a nine-year-old boy living on the same campus. The court's decision is significant as it addresses issues of negligence and the responsibilities of childcare institutions in safeguarding children.

The case, Morton et al v. Eagle Ranch Foundation, Inc., was filed after the Mortons alleged that Eagle Ranch failed to provide adequate supervision and training, which led to the assault on their son. The court's ruling, issued on October 28, 2026, allows the Mortons to pursue their claims of negligence and punitive damages, while affirming the lower court's decision regarding their breach-of-contract claim.

Background

Eagle Ranch is a nonprofit organization located in Flowery Branch, Georgia, that provides residential care for children facing behavioral and emotional challenges. The organization employs couples known as House Parents to live on campus with the children, including their own children, referred to as Staff Kids. Sarah and Jeffrey Morton became House Parents at Eagle Ranch in April 2020, living on campus with their two sons, T. M. and T. M. II.

The incident at the center of the case occurred on October 18, 2021, when T. M. II was sexually assaulted by J. R., the nine-year-old son of another staff couple. The Mortons claimed that Eagle Ranch was aware of J. R.'s previous bullying behavior towards T. M. II but failed to take appropriate action. Following the assault, the Mortons reported the incident to law enforcement after Eagle Ranch did not believe it constituted sexual abuse.

In June 2022, the Mortons filed a lawsuit against Eagle Ranch, asserting claims of negligence for failing to protect their son and breach of contract regarding a severance proposal after they resigned from their positions. Eagle Ranch responded by filing for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, leading to the Mortons' appeal.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the Mortons' negligence claims, allowing them to proceed with their case. The court found that the trial court erred in determining that the assault was not foreseeable. The opinion stated, "Given the totality of these circumstances, a jury could conclude that the incident involving J. R. and T. M. II was foreseeable, and the court erred in ruling otherwise."

The court also ruled that the Mortons presented sufficient evidence to suggest that Eagle Ranch failed to implement adequate safeguards and training for its staff, which could have prevented the assault. The ruling emphasized that the question of foreseeability is generally a matter for the jury to decide, stating, "The question of reasonable foreseeability in this context is generally a question for the jury to decide."

However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the breach-of-contract claim, noting that the Mortons did not sufficiently prove the existence of a contract regarding the severance proposal. The court stated that the Mortons had abandoned their claim regarding negligence per se, which related to mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse.

Impact

This ruling is significant as it allows the Mortons to proceed with their claims against Eagle Ranch, highlighting the responsibilities of childcare institutions in preventing abuse and ensuring the safety of children in their care. The decision also underscores the importance of adequate training and supervision in childcare environments, particularly those involving children with behavioral issues.

The reversal of summary judgment on the negligence claims sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that institutions can be held liable for failing to take reasonable precautions to protect children from harm. This case could influence how courts evaluate foreseeability and negligence claims in the context of child welfare and safety.

What's Next

The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings regarding the Mortons' negligence claims. Eagle Ranch may still appeal certain aspects of the ruling, particularly concerning the interpretation of foreseeability and negligence standards. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.