In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 218, the California Child Victims Act, which gave alleged survivors of child sexual abuse a three-year window to file new claims that would have been previously barred under the statute of limitations.
The window closed at the end of 2022, but predictably, thousands of claims were filed against Los Angeles County. Like some other entities, the County Board of Supervisors agreed to settle, rather than litigate, ancient claims alleging abuse in county juvenile facilities extending as far back as 1959, when Eisenhower was still president and Hawaii was just becoming our 50th state.
County attorneys seem to have concluded that it would be cheaper, not to mention simpler, to just write a $4 billion check to make the whole thing go away.
But following the county’s agreed payout, it soon became evident that the Board of Supervisors had been too quick to approve the claims. Press reports emerged of instances of fraudulent procurement and solicitation of claims of abuse forcing the board to initiate the additional scrutiny of the agreed upon payouts.
Responding, District Attorney Nathan Hochman directed his office to examine the juvenile detention abuse claims. As part of the effort, Hochman’s office implemented a data collection system capturing information from multiple government data bases.
After this preliminary investigation, Hochman stated that he believed that as many as 81% of the claims seeking funds from the settlement may be fraudulent. He asked the court overseeing the settlement to give his office more time to review them and to freeze the payouts, telling Judge Lawrence P. Riff that he needed up to the end of this year to properly vet the claims, cull the fraudulent ones and thereby ensure the integrity of the settlement. Hochman argued that his office had access to information that would enable a more thorough analysis of the claims.
Without adequate investigation, he declared, the county may be on the path of paying enormous sums for what would constitute a theft of public funds.
Meanwhile, the law firms representing the 11,000 claimants resisted placing the settlement on hold, claiming that the DA was attempting to intervene with an already decided civil settlement to which he wasn’t a party, and would be depriving injured claimants of their share of the negotiated $4 billion settlement. But Judge Riff denied freezing payouts for six months, and sided with the law firms requesting that settlement immediately move forward. The board, the judge commented, adequately represents the interests of the county in the matter.
The court’s ruling could be quite consequential even if it ultimately thwarts detection of only a small number of fraudulent claims. The county has committed to pay out billions of dollars that would no longer be available to help finance vital public services like law enforcement, fire protection, child protective services, ongoing juvenile supervision and to help meet the county’s many other constituent obligations.
Ordinarily, the county would not need the oversight of the district attorney when entering into agreements with the private bar concerning civil matters. Here, however, allegations and evidence of crime concerning the settlement of thousands of cases have already spurred the supervisors into requesting the DA’s own review of the pending claims.
It would cause irreparable harm to the taxpayers if the board succeeds in restraining the DA from pursuing his effort to protect public resources against theft and fraud.
As district attorney, Hochman has a legitimate interest and role in protecting public funds from being looted in a potential fraud scheme enabled by the reckless overreach of AB 218, its irresponsible endorsement by the governor and the hasty, careless approval of the $4 billion settlement by the Board of Supervisors.
Because the board failed to exercise its due diligence, that responsibility now falls on the district attorney. It is deeply unfortunate that the court has chosen to impede, rather than facilitate, that worthy effort.
South Pasadenan Joseph Charney is a former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney.