The settlement highlights how legally required abuse reports allegedly went unfiled before an 11-year-old girl died, raising broader concerns about child-protection systems in San Diego.
San Diego city and county agencies agreed to pay a combined $31.5 million to settle a civil lawsuit alleging that legally required child-abuse reports were not made before the 2022 death of 11-year-old Arabella McCormack. The agreement, announced Friday, also includes payments from a homeschooling program and a church and was filed on behalf of Arabella’s two younger sisters, who were living in the same household at the time and are now in foster care.
The settlement matters beyond this case because it centers on how mandated reporting laws are supposed to work—and what can happen when warning signs of abuse are allegedly missed or not acted on. Under California law, certain professionals must report suspected abuse quickly to trigger intervention. The civil agreement does not determine criminal guilt, but it explains how failures in that reporting system can lead to significant legal and financial consequences for public agencies and institutions.
In short: California law requires certain professionals to report suspected child abuse immediately, based on reasonable suspicion. When those reports are not made, agencies and institutions can face civil liability if harm later occurs. This settlement reflects that legal exposure, not a criminal verdict.
For many readers, the question is simple: how many chances were there to intervene before help arrived?
How mandated reporting works under California law
California’s Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act requires teachers, social workers, school administrators, and other designated professionals to act when they reasonably suspect a child is being abused or neglected. The law does not require certainty or proof. Instead, mandated reporters must make an initial report immediately or as soon as practicable by telephone, followed by a written report within 36 hours.
The goal is early intervention. When reports are made promptly, child protective services or law enforcement can investigate, assess safety, and take protective steps. When reports are delayed or never filed, the opportunity to intervene may be lost.
How the $31.5 million settlement is divided
According to public court filings, the settlement includes $10 million from the city of San Diego, $10 million from San Diego County, $8.5 million from Pacific Coast Academy, and $3 million from Rock Church. Pacific Coast Academy oversaw Arabella’s homeschooling, and her adoptive mother held a leadership role at Rock Church.
The agreement resolves the civil claims against those entities without a trial or admission of wrongdoing. Because the beneficiaries are minors, the settlement will be subject to court oversight to determine how the funds are held and distributed for the sisters’ long-term care and support.
Takeaway: The civil case is closing, but how the money is managed will remain under judicial supervision.
👉 Related: Why the Tyler Skaggs wrongful-death case against the LA Angels settled during jury deliberations 👈
What authorities say happened before the child’s death
Sheriff’s deputies responded on Aug. 30, 2022, to a report of a child in distress at the family’s home. Authorities said Arabella was found severely malnourished with visible bruising and was taken to a hospital, where she later died.
The lawsuit alleged that multiple agencies and organizations encountered warning signs over time but failed to report suspected abuse as required. The focus of the civil case was not a single missed moment, but an alleged pattern of breakdowns across systems designed to protect children.
Takeaway: The lawsuit centers on whether safeguards meant to detect abuse were activated in time.
Criminal charges are separate and still pending
Arabella’s adoptive mother, Leticia McCormack, and her parents, Adella and Stanley Tom, have been charged with murder, conspiracy, child abuse, and torture. All three have pleaded not guilty, and the criminal case remains ongoing in San Diego County Superior Court.
Civil settlements do not determine criminal responsibility. Prosecutors must prove the criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than applies in civil lawsuits.
Takeaway: The settlement does not affect the outcome or timeline of the criminal case.
Why this case has broader significance statewide
California has faced repeated scrutiny over how child-abuse reports are tracked and acted upon. A California State Auditor report has previously described the state’s reporting and data systems as fragmented, noting that reports are not always consistently forwarded or recorded across agencies.
Cases involving homeschooling can present additional challenges because children may have fewer daily contact points with teachers or medical professionals. In those situations, mandated reporters who do have contact may play an especially critical role.
Takeaway: The settlement lands amid ongoing concerns about how reliably child-protection systems function across counties.
What this means for families and institutions
For Arabella’s two surviving sisters, the settlement is intended to provide long-term stability, including support for education, housing, and care following severe trauma. Their attorney has said the girls are now 9 and 11 and are in good health.
For schools, churches, and public agencies, the case underscores that mandated reporting is not merely a policy expectation—it is a legal duty with real consequences when it is not fulfilled.
Takeaway: The outcome reinforces that early reporting obligations are central to child safety and institutional accountability.
Practical information: how suspected child abuse is reported in California
State guidance instructs mandated reporters to contact a designated agency—such as child protective services or law enforcement—immediately by phone when abuse is suspected, followed by a written report within 36 hours using the state’s Suspected Child Abuse Report form (SS-8572).
Members of the public who believe a child is in immediate danger should contact emergency services. For non-emergency concerns, counties operate child protective services hotlines with publicly listed numbers.
Takeaway: The reporting system is designed for speed, because delays can reduce the chance of intervention.
Key questions answered
Did San Diego agencies admit fault by settling?
No. Civil settlements commonly resolve claims without admissions of liability or a court judgment on fault.
Who gets the $31.5 million settlement?
The funds are designated for Arabella’s two younger sisters and will be distributed under court supervision to protect their interests.
Why were a school and church included?
The lawsuit alleged those organizations had contact with the child and failed to report warning signs as required by law.
Does the settlement affect the criminal charges?
No. The criminal case proceeds independently under a different legal standard.
When will the children receive the money?
After court approval, funds are typically placed in protected accounts or structured arrangements rather than paid as a lump sum.
What happens next
The settlement must still complete court approval steps related to minors’ funds. Separately, the criminal case against the adoptive caregivers will continue through pretrial proceedings and any trial schedule set by the court.
Takeaway: Civil claims are nearing resolution, while criminal accountability remains undecided.
Why this story matters
This case illustrates how child-protection laws rely on early reporting to prevent irreversible harm. It affects two children directly, but it also raises broader questions about how mandated reporting systems function when children have limited outside visibility. As the criminal case continues, attention will remain on whether existing safeguards are sufficient—and whether they are being followed.
