foreseeable.” Id. at 76; cf. Simpson, 880 So.2d at 1051 (¶ 14); Summers, 759 So.2d at 1214 (¶ 47). “Without knowledge of her husband’s deviant propensities, a wife will not be able to foresee that he poses a danger and thus will not have a duty to take measures to prevent the assault.” Chaney, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d at 76. So we find, in order to establish Perl-man’s duty to protect A.F. from Adkins’s criminal acts, Faul had to produce ev aul offered no proof Perlman should have known of Adkins’s deviant propensities. 1120. In Glover, the minor rape victim’s supervisor knew that the two young men who assaulted her had violent tendencies and had expelled one of them from the youth program the victim attended. Glover, 968 So.2d at 1279 (¶ 40); see also Pamela L., 169 Cal.Rptr. at 284-85 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in Summers, the injured student
holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children holding that a wife who invited and encouraged children to visit her premises even though she knew that husband had molested women and children in the past and might do so again could be held liable in negligence recognizing that because the state has cognizable interests in the safety of children in its jurisdiction neglectful parents may be separated from their children holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother    because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children holding wife unreasonably exposed neighbors children to danger because she invited the children over in spite of knowing her husband had molested children in the past