ACLU DCFS Foster Care Jim McDonnell LA County Board of Supervisors LA County Jail LASD

Sheriff McDonnell’s Thoughts One Month In….Jail Beating Victims Win $5M in Legal Fees….Ferguson Grand Juror Sues….and Foster Kids

LASD SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL MAKES MEDIA ROUNDS, DISCUSSES DUAL-TRACK SYSTEM, OVERSIGHT, REPLACING JAIL

LA County Sheriff Jim McDonnell says he has his sights set on a plan that would keep new deputies from having to spend years working in jails before heading out on patrol. The aim would be to fill all jail positions within the next three years, so that patrol-seeking deputies would be able to skip or reduce the customary time spent learning the custody division (which can last up to seven years).

The LA Daily News’ Rick Orlov has the story. Here’s a clip:

McDonnell said the original intent of the system was to have deputies spend a year or two in the jails to allow them to learn about the custodial division.

But, over the years, that assignment grew to as long as seven years and has hurt recruitment, McDonnell said.

“Young people today are very sophisticated and they look at what the different departments offer,” McDonnell said. “They joined to be in patrol cars and help people. I don’t think you are helping recruitment when you send them to the jails for so long.”

The proposal to reduce use of new deputies in the jails was contained in a 2012 report by the Citizens Commission on Jail Violence, of which McDonnell was a member. The panel also recommended the use of custody assistants to help staff the jails and relieve the need for deputies.

Peter Eliasberg, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, which has been critical of the jail system, said he supports McDonnell’s proposal.

“I always thought the claim that jails are the appropriate place to learn about bad people is not right,” Eliasberg said. “Patrol requires a different response and temperament than is needed in the jails.

Sheriff McDonnell, who was sworn in a little over a month ago, as part of a media circuit, spoke with KPCC’s Larry Mantle on AirTalk about the dual track recruiting system, as well as the fate of Men’s Central Jail, and civilian oversight.

LA Observed’s Kevin Roderick has a good round up of McDonnell’s other appearances.


OVER $5 MILLION IN LEGAL FEES AWARDED TO MEN’S CENTRAL JAIL IMNATES

A federal judge has awarded nearly $5.4 million in legal fees to five Men’s Central Jail inmates who say they were brutally beaten and tasered by deputies in 2008. (Read about the trial here.) This number is in addition to $950,000 in damages won by the inmates last year.

Legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, Peter Eliasberg, points out that the county could have avoided paying over $5 million in legal fees (more than $6 million of tax payers’ money) by settling for less $1 million.

The LA Times’ Cindy Chang has the story. Here are some clips:

The amount, approved by a federal judge last week, is unusually large for such cases and may encourage more attorneys to represent indigent plaintiffs who claim abuse by their jailers. It comes on top of $950,000 in damages that a federal jury awarded to the inmates after a trial last February.

Heriberto Rodriguez and the other inmates say that they suffered broken bones in beatings by sheriff’s deputies when they refused to leave their cells at Men’s Central Jail on Aug. 25, 2008. The county argued that deputies took the steps they felt were necessary after a riot broke out, with inmates setting fires and throwing porcelain shards from broken sinks.

In a Dec. 26 order, U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall accepted the winning attorneys’ assessment that they spent nearly 6,000 hours on the case at rates of up to $975 an hour. The attorneys said they had been willing to settle the case, including legal fees, for about $900,000, but the county refused.

Of the $950,000 jury award, $210,000 was for punitive damages and $9,500 will go to the inmates’ attorneys, in addition to the nearly $5.4 million in attorneys fees granted by the judge’s order.


GRAND JUROR, WANTING TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT DARREN WILSON CASE PROCEEDINGS, SUES COUNTY PROSECUTOR

An unnamed member of the grand jury that chose not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown, is now suing the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, seeking to negate a gag order prohibiting grand jurors from speaking about the case. Normally, grand jurors who discuss cases face misdemeanor charges, but the lawsuit filed Monday by the ACLU of Missouri, says the unusual proceedings (which included sharing all evidence with the grand jury instead of recommending a charge), warrants permitting the juror to speak. The lawsuit says that the presumption that the grand jury’s decision was unanimous is inaccurate, as is other information shared with the public about the proceedings.

On Monday, in a letter to St. Louis Circuit Judge Maura McShane, the NAACP requested that a new grand jury be convened to reconsider charges against Darren Wilson. The group also asked for an investigation into the grand jury proceedings and McCulloch’s actions.

St. Louis Public Radio’s Chris McDaniel has the story. Here’s a clip:

“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. (A grand jury’s decision does not have to be unanimous.)

“Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own,” the lawsuit continued. “From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury.” Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.

In the lawsuit filed Monday in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues that this case is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply.

In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.

As the grand juror points out in the lawsuit, the Wilson case was handled in a very different manner than other grand juries. Instead of recommending a charge, McCulloch’s office presented thousands of pages worth of evidence and testimony before the grand jury. At one point, McCulloch’s spokesman characterized the grand jury as co-investigators.

CBS News has more on the NAACP requests.


A LOOK INTO THE LIVES OF DRUGGED FOSTER KIDS

In the fifth installment of Karen de Sá’s important investigative series for the San Jose Mercury, a video documentary gives us a more intimate look at the young lives affected by the unchecked overuse of psychotropic medications to treat California’s foster kids.

Watch it here, especially if you missed any of the previous installments (which can all be accessed via the same link).


IMPROVING FOSTER KIDS’ HIGHER EDUCATION OUTCOMES

When foster kids age out of the system, the odds are invariably stacked against them. They often leave their foster homes with little or no money, support, or tools to prepare them for college or adult life. (A 2011 study by the Hilton Foundation found that only 2% of the 2,388 LA County former foster youth tracked by researchers received an associate’s degree.)

A growing number of states are working to help level the playing field for former foster kids by offering college tuition waivers and educational support programs. While California does have cross-agency collaborative support systems in place, the state does not offer tuition waivers to aged-out foster kids.

NPR’s Jennifer Guerra discusses this issue on All Things Considered. Take a listen, but here’s a clip from the accompanying story:

By the time she aged out of foster care, Jasmine Uqdah had spent nearly half her life in the system. On a summer day in 2008, Uqdah grabbed her duffel bag and two small garbage bags, and she stuffed everything she owned inside.

It wasn’t much — just some clothes and a few stuffed animals. She said her goodbyes to her foster family in Detroit and moved out. She was 18 years old.

“It was pretty scary, to be honest,” she says. “Every 18- and 19-year-old thinks they’re ready, but you’re not. You’re not ready for shutoff notices. You’re not ready for eviction notices. You’re not ready for car repossessions.”

Uqdah was one of the more than 20,000 young people who age out of foster care in the U.S. every year. For most, the outcomes aren’t great. They’re heading out into the world with next to nothing — no family, no money, no support.

Roughly half drop out of high school, and few of those who do make it to college graduate. One study, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago, found that only 2.5 percent of former foster children in the Midwest had graduated from college by age 26.

Some states like Michigan are trying to bring that success rate way up, finding the money and other support needed to give young people like Jasmine Uqdah a fair shot at success.

AND WHILE WE’RE ON THE SUBJECT…

An LA Times editorial urges the LA County Board of Supervisors to regain lost momentum toward implementing foster care reform recommendations (approved last April) and appointing a child welfare czar. (Find the backstory here.) Here’s a clip:

In response to a social worker strike, rather than the blue-ribbon commission report or the urging of the CEO, the board last year allocated funding for additional social workers, which should translate into more manageable caseloads. DCFS adopted a stronger training program. These are positive steps. But the county also needs someone to focus the attention of numerous government agencies on child protection without running afoul of the board.

In the end, if the supervisors are to protect children from abuse and neglect, they must also grapple with the more prosaic issue of how to successfully run a bureaucracy.

Attempts at plea bargains with Gabriel Fernandez’s mother and her boyfriend have so far failed, and the two defendants could very well go to trial this year. The supervisors would be wise to remember the young victim’s plight now, and ensure that the reform efforts are well underway when the news stories once again focus on the horrors that the young boy endured and the county’s failure to protect him.

26 Comments

  • Celeste,
    I asked you once before but never received a reply. Are you of the opinion that Officer Wilson should be indicted in the Michael Brown incident?

  • Unbiased,
    That’s hardly killing the messenger. I considered it a rather tactful approach in lieu of me asking Celeste a question and Taxpayer interjecting with an antagonistic comment. As for as your comment “There are others to engage”……did you mean Taxpayer as an example, due to his/her provocative interjection?

  • EDITOR’S NOTE:

    Oh Well, I’m not ignoring you, I’ve just been jammed for the last couple of days and am working on tomorrow’s post. (Plus I generally try to avoid getting into discussions in the comment section.)

    The short answer is: I don’t have an opinion one way or another. What I was the most interested in is the process, which I think was faulty. I believe for a whole host of reasons that St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch should have taken himself out of the mix and a special prosecutor should have been brought in.

    However, had Officer Wilson been criminally indicted my suspicion is he would not have been convicted. I don’t know this, of course, because I—like the rest of you—have not seen all the evidence laid out in context, and the various witnesses rigorously cross-examined. (And juries can be quirky.) But based on what I’ve been able to learn, that would be my best guess at the moment.

    It will be interesting to see if the grand juror who has petitioned to have the lifetime gag order lifted will be successful. If so, we would learn a little more, which I would certainly welcome.

    That’s about all I have to say. I hope it helps.

    Okay, now I’m back to work.

    C.

  • The prosecutor took an oath to uphold the constitution. If he believed there was not sufficient evidence to believe the officer committed a crime than his obligation is to do the right thing and not indict this officer. If he simply indicted the officer because of political pressure, he would be violating his oath. This prosecutor took the middle ground and presented all the evidence to the grand jury. They refused to indict. If you actually read the constitution it is the governments obligation to ensure the rights of the potential criminal defendant are protected. Appointing a special prosecutor because we are worried about perceptions is directly opposed to the constitution.

  • Stuff,
    I didn’t realize that by asking her a question it would be interpreted as a challenge or antagonistic.
    Hmm. She answered my question. She doesn’t have an opinion either way.
    Consider me owned.

  • @ Dulce……Funny how you spoke for Tanaka, now you’re speaking for McDonnell. Really?

  • Friend of Sexton, I’m glad you brought that up. Dulce returned to her rock under ground while Tanaka was served his comeuppance, and now she is out trying to set distance between herself and the coin she holds dear. I think she speaks for whatever side she believes will butter her bread. Like here there are many self-serving individuals still pulling rank on the department…

  • @12. Can we be real? I would say that he was neutered. Trying to play it off was actually a dose of humility.

  • At Stuff : Oh Well was looking for a horse to jump on and ride. It didn’t happen. Very translucent to viewers.

  • Celeste,
    It appears I owe you an apology. I apologize. I didn’t realize that by asking you that question I was being confrontational, antagonistic or disrespectful. After the comments of so many I now realize I had absolutely no business asking you that question.
    I apologize.
    Consider me owned. Consider me neutered. Consider me left without a horse to ride. Consider me translucent.
    I want everyone to know that I recognize the error of my ways. I realize that should I wish to avoid being so utterly embarrassed in the future, I simply need to quit asking questions. I realize now that is out of line. It doesn’t matter if the question is asked in a respectful manner, the mere fact that I had the hubris to ask a question was definitely the wrong thing to do.

  • EDITOR’S NOTE:

    For the record, I had no problem with Oh Well asking me a question.

    Most questions I won’t answer, mainly because my days are crazily long and overloaded as it is, and my job is to report, write and edit (and to occasionally try to complete my sentences on the radio)—along with doing all the business/fundraising tasks necessary to keep a nonprofit site of this nature going—-not to engage in discussion or argument in WLA’s comment section. (However tempting the latter may be at times.)

    But on rare occasions I break that rule and, in this case, his question was phrased very neutrally and it pertained—directly and indirectly—to a whole host of things we’ve covered and will continue to cover. So I answered briefly. Doing so also helped me clarify my own thoughts.

    From my personal perspective, I don’t think anybody got “owned.”

    Happy rainy Saturday.

    Over and out.

    C.

Leave a Comment