A judge on Friday temporarily rejected California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s request to place Los Angeles County’s troubled juvenile facilities under the control of a receiver, but warned he will revisit that decision in the near future.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Hernandez ruled that the proposed receivership would be too drastic of an action at this point in the ongoing civil case. The attorney general’s office has not exhausted “less extreme” options available, nor has it properly articulated “how the appointment of a receiver would be any different than the current leadership structure” within the county Probation Department, he wrote in a tentative ruling later adopted by the court.
Los Angeles County’s attorney, Robert Dugdale, had previously argued that any powers that could be granted to a proposed receiver to cut through red tape should be given to Probation Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa instead, so that he could “slash through staffing and regulatory knots” preventing him from addressing an ongoing staffing crisis.
Hernandez’s ruling left open that possibility as well. The tentative ruling asked both sides to address how the court can “help expedite that process” at a future hearing.
‘Systemic failure’
Still, Hernandez acknowledged a “systemic failure” by L.A. County to “comply with the most basic of tasks” outlined in a 2021 judgment, agreed to by the county and the state Department of Justice, according to the ruling. The judgment outlines hundreds of reforms necessary to address poor conditions within the juvenile halls. It requires the county to maintain basic living standards, to stem the flow of contraband into the facilities, to maintain adequate staffing and to ensure youth have access to education and medical services.
Nearly five years later, the juvenile halls remain out of compliance with 75% of the terms, according to Bonta’s office.
Hernandez, who took over the case recently, described the judgment’s requirements as “confusing” and as appearing to “have no ability to be rigorously tested and evaluated by any one person.”
“The biggest issue with this case is the lack of clarity,” Hernandez said at the hearing on Friday, Oct. 10.
He ordered both L.A. County and the attorney general’s office to return Oct. 24 and to bring witnesses to testify on the county’s progress — or lack of progress — toward addressing deficiencies in three key areas: staffing, data management and uses of force.
Hernandez repeatedly stressed his plans to move “expeditiously” once he has a better handle on the facts of the case. His ruling indicated he could fine the county daily — or even appoint a receiver — for its noncompliance.
Weighty decision
He described that possibility as the most difficult decision his court has ever had to weigh.
Those three areas have significant impact on the conditions within the juvenile halls. L.A. County has redeployed hundreds of probation officers from the field — where they would typically handle traditional probation cases — to the juvenile halls, yet has continuously been found to have insufficient numbers due to a “call-out culture” exacerbated by safety concerns.
The data management portion will explore the county’s inability to document, track and share information needed by a court-appointed monitor, or any oversight agency, to hold the Probation Department accountable. Some of the documentation received by the monitor appeared to be “fabricated,” according to the attorney general’s office.
Uses of force will cover not only the staff’s deployment of pepper spray, but also youth-on-youth violence and the county’s slow installation of security cameras at both Los Padrinos and Barry J. Nidorf juvenile halls.
Persistent problems
Since 2021, Los Angeles County’s juvenile halls have faced persistent, serious challenges, nearly all of which stem back to the county’s struggle to get probation officers to show up for work. They have expressed concerns about violence and excessively long shifts.
The state eventually shut down the two juvenile halls at the heart of the original lawsuit — Central and Barry J. Nidorf juvenile halls — in 2023. The judgment subsequently expanded to include the facilities’ successors.
L.A. County reopened Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey to take the populations of the shuttered facilities, but the move, envisioned as a way to consolidate staff and youth at one location, only added to the chaos.
Los Padrinos almost immediately found itself facing the same types of problems that had plagued its predecessors.
It experienced two violent escape attempts, a series of drug overdoses and near constant violence, including gladiator-style fights allegedly orchestrated by probation officers. A grand jury indicted 30 officers in March for allowing and even encouraging fights at Los Padrinos.
Los Padrinos ordered closed
In December, the Board of State and Community Corrections, having found Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall “unsuitable” for the confinement of youth due to a series of failed inspections, ordered that facility to close as well.
The county refused to comply and Los Padrinos remains open to this day.
A separate L.A. County Superior Court judge in the juvenile division took up the legality of Los Padrinos’ continued operation and, in May, ordered L.A. County to implement a plan to depopulate Los Padrinos by shuffling roughly 100 youths to other facilities and camps. So far, about 30 have been moved to Barry J. Nidorf, but that move has also sparked its own controversy because Nidorf, having been closed by the state in 2023, is still “unsuitable,” too, and legally should not house that population.
Laura Faer, a deputy attorney general, pointed to the move during her arguments. Two weeks ago, the attorney general’s office observed that some youth moved to Barry J. Nidorf had broken jaws and bruises.
“We have some very serious concerns about staffing there and access to medical,” Faer said. The attorney general’s office continues to see “high rates” of uses of force, a lack of training among staff and a consistent failure to comply with decontamination protocols when a youth is pepper sprayed, she said.
Probation committed to reforms
Dugdale, the county’s attorney, stressed the county will not be hanging a “mission accomplished” banner anytime soon. Probation is committed to making improvements in the juvenile halls, with or without the court’s intervention, he said. Still, he likened the mandates of the 2021 judgment to forcing the county to juggle 500 balls at once, some of which are made of crystal, while others are made of plastic, a reference to how impactful being out of compliance with one is compared to the other.
Dropping the crystal balls would be catastrophic, he said, suggesting the court should narrow the judgment to force compliance on the most serious of issues first, rather than making the county juggle everything at once.
Hernandez referenced the analogy later when he decided to limit the next hearing to only the three most significant areas of noncompliance.
Vicky Waters, a spokesperson for the Probation Department, described the court’s decision as “thoughtful.”
“We agree with the Court that this process should move expeditiously and that greater clarity is needed to define what full compliance means and how success should be measured,” she said in a statement. “The Department remains fully committed to making the necessary changes to bring our juvenile institutions to where they need to be. However, to achieve that goal, we must have both the authority and support to remove barriers that hinder progress rather than perpetuate no-win situations.”
Waters said the department is looking forward to working with the court, the state and others to “establish realistic, outcome-based standards that reflect both the complexity of this work and the shared goal of creating safe, rehabilitative environments for all youth in Los Angeles County’s care.”
Beginning of ‘a new era’
In a statement, Eddie Chism, president of the Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers’ Union, said the ruling confirmed that L.A. County’s juvenile system is broken and in urgent need of reforms. He called on the Board of Supervisors to work with the unions’ membership to develop a new model for the department.
“Los Angeles County’s youth, families, and victims deserve better,” Chism stated. “This ruling should mark the beginning of a new era — one rooted in partnership, respect, and a shared commitment to getting the mission of juvenile probation right.”