acquiesced and remained. The next day Tom had Rob Jr. write a letter to his parents telling them that he was planning to stay with the Church, as they were his new family. Rob Jr. was also told to demand money from his parents to cover his expenses. Rob Jr. remained with the church for a period of roughly six months. Rob Sr. and Bunny arranged to meet with Rob Jr. to give him his money for that month, and pulled him into the car and brought him home. They had to watch him carefully for about two weeks, but he finally came out of the brainwashing. They want to sue the Church for a number of things. They want to sue on their sons behalf for the intentional torts that were inflicted on him, as well as for the torts committed against them.
The term false imprisonment is misleading in that it does not necessarily refer to confinement within a prison. Ware v. Dunn, 80 Cal. App. 2d 936, 183 P.2d 128 (2d Dist. 1947). The term is broadly construed to mean detention of the plaintiff within boundaries fixed by the defendant, Stallings v. Foster, 119 Cal. App. 2d 614, 259 P.2d 1006 (3d Dist. 1953), either in prison Gogue v. MacDonald, 35 Cal. 2d 482, 218 P.2d 542, 21 A.L.R.2d 639 (1950) (county jail). Collins v. Owens, 77 Cal. App. 2d 713, 176 P.2d 372 (1st Dist. 1947) (incarceration in drunk cell) or in any place temporarily used for the purpose of confinement. Vandiveer v. Charters, 110 Cal. App. 347, 294 P. 440 (3d Dist. 1930).Thus, an action may be predicated on detention or confinement in a juvenile home McAlmond v. Trippel, 93 Cal. App. 584, 269 P. 937 (3d Dist. 1928) (rejecting contention that there can be no false imprisonment when detention is had under juvenile court laws and by juvenile court officers) or in a mental institution Collins v. Jones, 131 Cal. App. 747, 22 P.2d 39 (2d Dist. 1933) (overruled in part on other grounds by, Whaley v.