. Paul v. State family services agency

1. Standard of care

Paul could allege that the State family services agency was negligent in two different ways: first, by returning him to his mother’s care before she was able to look after him properly; secondly, by failing to intervene to take him back into State care after receiving the neighbor’s telephone call.

The question of whether the State family services agency acted negligently would depend upon an evaluation of what a reasonable agency in the same position would have done, which would be a mixed question of fact and law for the jury to decide. It is not clear what kind of a review the agency undertook before returning Paul to Deirdre’s care, but it did take some steps to satisfy itself “that Deirdre’s addictions were under control and that she was capable of looking after her son”. If it acted with reasonable care in making that assessment, then obviously it will not be held liable because it was not negligent at all.

2. Proximate cause

If the agency failed to take reasonable care in the assessment and return of Paul, an issue of proximate cause arises. The agency’s negligence did not directly cause the harm that befell Paul. The immediate cause was Deirdre’s failure to look after him. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Deirdre’s actions (or inaction) would be regarded as the sole cause of Paul’s harm, so as to relieve the agency of liability. The possibility that Deirdre might not be able to look after Paul because of substance abuse was the very risk that the agency should have guarded against when considering whether to return Paul to Deirdre. If the agency was negligent in returning Paul to Deirdre’s care, an injury to Paul because of Deirdre’s inability to care for him was clearly a foreseeable consequence of that negligence.

The fact that Paul’s injuries were made worse as a result