A father’s desperate plea for justice was dismissed in court after he alleged that repeated cyber-attacks on his family’s home network constituted child abuse. On June 21, 2024, James T. Brown III filed a complaint in the Third Appellate District Court of California against the Department of Justice, accusing them of negligence and failure to act on reported cybercrimes affecting his children.
Brown's complaint detailed a harrowing series of events between 2017 and 2019 where criminals hacked into his family's internet and cellular networks. These attacks allegedly caused significant emotional distress to Brown’s minor children, which he argued amounted to "child abuse" under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code § 11164 et seq.). Despite notifying the Department of Justice multiple times, Brown claimed that no preventive measures were taken, nor were appropriate agencies informed about the ongoing cyber-attacks.
The Department of Justice responded by filing a demurrer, asserting immunity under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 810 et seq.) and arguing that Brown's complaint lacked sufficient facts to constitute a valid cause of action. The trial court agreed with the Department, sustaining their demurrer without leave to amend and entering judgment in favor of the Department.
In his appeal, Brown contended that his complaint adequately stated a claim for emotional distress due to the Department's negligent violations of the Reporting Act. He argued that the Department had a duty to cross-report suspected child abuse to relevant agencies but failed to do so. However, upon review, it was determined that public entities like the Department are generally immune from tort liability unless specified by statute. Furthermore, it was concluded that the Reporting Act did not create a private right of action for individuals like Brown.
Brown also sought vicarious liability against the Department under section 815.2 for its employees' failure as mandated reporters to report suspected child abuse. Yet again, this claim fell short as it was established that only designated local law enforcement and child welfare agencies have mandatory cross-reporting duties under Penal Code § 11166(k). Additionally, there were insufficient allegations to suggest any reasonable suspicion of "child abuse" as defined by the Reporting Act.
Ultimately, without any substantial evidence or statutory basis supporting his claims, Brown's appeal was denied. The court affirmed its previous judgment dismissing his case and ruled in favor of the Department.
The attorneys involved in this case included James T. Brown III representing himself pro se and legal representatives from the Department of Justice. The case was presided over by Judges Krause, Earl, and Duarte under Case ID C098572.