The San Diego Superior Court is ending its administrative support for the Juvenile Justice Commission. It threatens the independent oversight of the county’s juvenile institutions as abuse allegations against those institutions continue to pile up.
San Diego’s Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) inspects the county’s publicly run juvenile institutions — including juvenile halls and foster care facilities — and reviews reports of serious incidents that happen there. State law requires the commission to exist.
Until now, the Superior Court has provided the commission with administrative support, staffing and liability insurance. That’s set to end on Sept. 29.
Commissioner Nikhil Plettner Booker read a letter from teens in City Heights on the courthouse steps Friday morning. He hoped it would allow those most impacted to speak for themselves to the press.
“The people checking the system should not be the same people running the system. If something bad happens to us, we need someone safe to tell who does not work for the people we are complaining about,” he read.
In a letter dated August of last year, the Superior Court told the JJC that it needs to separate from the commission to maintain judicial neutrality and avoid the appearance of endorsing the commission’s opinions. It said the county is responsible for those costs, not the Court.
The commissioners argue the court is a better support source because they need independence from the county to hold it accountable.
County spokesperson Yvette Urrea Moe told KPBS by email: "While the Court characterizes the JJC as a county commission, the County has long maintained that the JJC is an independent commission of the judicial branch, which appoints the JJC members. In 2014, the County and the Court discussed this issue, at which time the Court assumed responsibility for providing JJC administrative support."
She said the county has been working with the court to resolve the issue, and is considering "pursuing legislative clarification" on the issue.
"The County’s position is not a withdrawal of support for the JJC’s mission. Rather, it merely concerns which governmental entity is obligated under state law to provide administrative support and funding," she wrote.
The dispute began early last year, when the court moved to change the commission’s bylaws to better align the commission’s structure with its statutory responsibilities. Those changes could also restrict the commission’s independence.
The commission pushed back, saying it needed autonomy in reports and public statements, discretion to publish reports without requiring judicial approval, and the ability to engage with the public without excessive gatekeeping.
San Diego Superior Court spokesperson Emily Cox said by email that the discussion prompted the court to conduct a legal review of its relationship with the JJC. Staff ultimately determined not only that the county is responsible for supporting the JJC, but that the court is prohibited from using court operations funds to support the JJC.
“Despite our repeated efforts to explain the legal, ethical, and fiscal constraints governing the Court’s role, we recognize that those decisions have not always been well received by the JJC,” Cox wrote. “The Court nevertheless remains grateful for the JJC’s dedication and commitment to public service and strongly supports the Commission’s continued independent work on behalf of the youth of San Diego County.”
The support is due to end on Sept. 29 — an extension from the original date of July 1 meant to help the commission transition.
At least nine of the 10 commissioners have said without liability insurance, they’ll resign — effectively ending independent oversight of the county’s juvenile institutions.
Meanwhile, hundreds of plaintiffs are alleging misconduct and abuse in those institutions — including various detention centers and foster care facilities — in pending lawsuits.
“The recent allegations involving youth in custody remind us why independent oversight exists in the first place,” said JCC Commissioner Rudy Ramirez. “This is a time to strengthen that oversight, not weaken it.”
