(a)Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection workers, and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall not extend to any of the following, if committed with malice:
(1)Perjury.
(2)Fabrication of evidence.
(3)Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence.
(4)Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of the Civil Code, fraud, as defined in either Section 1572 or Section 1573 of the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section 1575 of the Civil Code.
(b)As used in this section, “malice” means conduct that is intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the person described in subdivision (a) with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
Notes of Decisions
Gabrielle A. v. Cnty. of Orange, 10 Cal. App. 5th 1268 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” (Gov. Code, § 820.21, subd. (b).) Thus, not only must the act fall into one of the enumerated categories, but it must also be committed with malice.”
Reynolds v. Cnty. of San Diego, 224 F. Supp. 3d 1034 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 4× “) Bryson, Medeiros, and Zetmeir further argue that Plaintiffs have not presented evidence to show that the exception to discretionary immunity, California Government Code § 820.21, should apply.”
Parkes v. Cnty. of San Diego, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (S.D. Cal. 2004).
· cites it 2× “California Government Code § 820.21 provides that immunity for social workers does not extend to conduct that includes perjury, fabrication of evidence, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and obtaining testimony by duress, if committed with malice.”
Olvera v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 932 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2013).
“Plaintiffs nonetheless contend that California Government Code section 820.21 precludes Lopez and Solía from receiving immunity under section 821.”
Harris v. Cnty. of San Diego (S.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 2× “State causes of action 20 Plaintiffs assert state civil rights violations under Cal. Gov. Code § 820.21 21 and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 43 , 49, 51, and 52.”
K. v. Sonoma Cnty. (N.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Cal. Gov. Code § 820.21 (a). “Malice” is defined as “conduct that is intended .”
Christina C. v. Cnty. of Orange (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” 14 Plaintiffs see in another code provision, Government Code section 820.21, an exception dissolving immunity for social workers whenever their discretionary decisions result in harm that plaintiffs insist was “created with intent and malice.”
(PS) Gonzalez v. Jones (E.D. Cal. 2020).
“1 ), 10 and Falsifying a Record/Perjury ( Cal. Gov. Code § 820.21 ). (See ECF No. 136 at p.”
(PS) Gonzalez v. Jones (E.D. Cal. 2021).
“Bane Act) as well as a 10 claim for allegedly Falsifying a Record/Perjury ( Cal. Gov. Code § 820.21 ). (See ECF No. 136 at 11 2.”
Rodriguez v. Cnty. of San Joaquin (E.D. Cal. 2021).
“) With respect to 21 Plaintiff’s negligence, NIED, and IIED claims, Defendants claim Evans is entitled to statutory 22 immunity pursuant to California Government Code § 821.6 (“§ 821.”
Cal. Government Code § 820.21(a): 1 case
Cal. Government Code § 820.21(b): 1 case
Parkes v. Cnty. of San Diego, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (S.D. Cal. 2004).
“California Government Code § 820.21 provides that immunity for social workers does not extend to conduct that includes perjury, fabrication of evidence, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and obtaining testimony by duress, if committed with malice.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.