Los Angeles County is refusing to close Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in defiance of state law, filing a Hail Mary appeal alleging it failed recent inspections only because of a state oversight board’s “misappropriation and capricious enforcement” of regulations governing youth detention.
The last-ditch effort came on the final day of a 60-day countdown requiring L.A. County to either fix its understaffing or to empty its largest juvenile hall, which houses about 260 youth accused of crimes and awaiting their day in court. In a letter, attorney Esteban Rodriguez, on behalf of the county Probation Department, requested the Board of State and Community Corrections, the agency overseeing California’s jails and juvenile facilities, stop the clock until the appeal process concludes.
“In its appeal, the County will request, among other things, that the BSCC overturn its reinspection findings and find that Los Padrinos is suitable for confinement of youth,” Rodriguez wrote. The county will submit its full argument and associated exhibits within 30 days, he said.
While the BSCC or its executive director can take up the appeal, it is unclear if the BSCC has the authority to freeze the closure deadline, which is set by state law. California’s Welfare and Institutions Code states that after the 60-day window passes, the facility may not be used “for the secure detention of a juvenile until” a judge or the BSCC “finds, after reinspection, that the conditions that rendered the facility unsuitable have been remedied.”
Los Padrinos was initially found out of compliance back in August. The facility, which has struggled with insufficient staffing since it reopened in 2023, received its final reinspection on Dec. 5-6, but state inspectors found nearly a quarter of the shifts remained understaffed, creating potentially dangerous situations for probation officers and the youth in custody.
The department disagrees with the BSCC’s “application of regulations and overall findings, particularly around staffing ratios,” according to spokesperson Vicky Waters.
“It’s also important to note that the youth currently housed in the facility are for the most part awaiting adjudication and facing very serious offenses,” Waters said. “For the sake of public safety, these would not be eligible to be housed in a less secure facility, and certainly would not benefit from any further disruption in their education and programming opportunities.”
Critics have accused L.A. County of intentionally refusing to develop a plan for the possible closure. Arrangements could have been made to transfer youth to secure facilities in other counties, or to release those with lesser offenses to community detention, advocates have argued.
Three organizations — Prisma Legal Center for Youth Justice, the Peace and Justice Law Center, and the Youth Law Center — have sent demand letters, on behalf of Loyola Law School’s Juvenile Justice Clinic, urging the Superior Court stop sending new youth to Los Padrinos and the Probation Department to cease using the facility for the confinement of youth. Those letters are the precursors for lawsuits likely to be filed before the end of the year.
In a statement, Roshell Amezcua, director of the Juvenile Justice Clinic, compared Probation Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa’s plan to keep the juvenile hall open to a “young person in Los Padrinos telling a judge they don’t have to follow the law just because they don’t agree with it.”
“The problems at Los Padrinos have plagued Probation for years, and it is time we stop making our children pay the price,” Amezcua said. “Chief Viera Rosa says Probation has no other choice but to keep the facility open, but it was Probation’s job to find other options, and it entirely failed to do so. With today’s statement, Chief Viera Rosa and Chief Deputy (Kimberly) Epps continue Probation’s long history of shirking its responsibilities and ignoring the law.”
The Board of State and Community Corrections may sue as well. The regulatory board is scheduled to meet Dec. 18 to discuss how it can force L.A. County to adhere to the law. A state attorney general’s opinion in 2000 suggested its predecessor, the Board of Corrections, did not have the authority to take a noncompliant county to court.
Instead, the county could be dragged into hundreds of individual court battles as attorneys attempt to get their clients out of Los Padrinos. The Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office already plans to file motions for each of its 107 clients, asking for those youth to be released to their families or to noncarceral housing. Other defense attorneys are expected to take similar actions.
“Our clients should be released from Los Padrinos and suitably placed on the grounds that BSCC has found the facilities to be unsuitable, which is inconsistent with the law that states that juvenile halls should be a safe and supportive environment for the youth,” said Luis Rodriguez, juvenile division chief for the Public Defender’s Office.
The Los Angeles County Superior Court declined to comment on the matter because it “may become the subject of litigation.”
Only two juvenile halls — both in Los Angeles County in 2023 — have been closed by the BSCC and, in that case, county officials complied by transferring the youth from the unsuitable facilities to Los Padrinos. This time, however, there are no remaining sites large enough to serve as a backup.
In statements, two county supervisors came out in defense of the Probation Department’s decision and laid the blame on probation officers not showing up for work. The department has struggled to fill shifts because a significant portion of its employees either call out, or are on medical leaves. Probation officers have attributed the absences to the violence in the juvenile hall, saying that officers have sustained injuries and fear for their safety.
Supervisor Janice Hahn, whose district includes Los Padrinos in Downey, argued that “relocating youth from Los Padrinos is not going to be better for them.”
“We have done it in the past and it has only caused more chaos and harm,” Hahn stated. “Now that we have no other juvenile facility licensed to house pre-disposition youth, closing Los Padrinos would mean many of them would be sent to county jail which is the worst case scenario.”
The department is facing “staffing challenges, not facility challenges,” she said.
“Contrary to what the union is claiming,” Hahn said, “we have adequate numbers of staff on payroll and we have been actively recruiting and hiring which we will continue to do. But the reality is that many probation officers are not showing up to work and that puts an unfair burden on those who do and undermines the rehabilitation of the youth.”
She called on “all of our probation officers to show up to work their assigned shifts” to help address the emergency.
“We are facing uncharted territory,” she said. “I know that some people will say it’s too late, but I hold out hope that we can resolve this crisis without making this situation worse for the young people in our care.”
Supervisor Kathryn Barger echoed Hahn’s statement, sating she is giving the “subject matter experts” in the Probation Department the “space to lead and resolve their biggest challenge: getting probation officers to show up for work.”
“I’m extremely disappointed that we have a sizable number of probation officers who voluntarily chose this profession yet are absconding from their responsibilities,” she said. “Having an insufficient number of employees show up has a domino effect on delivering adequate supervision, programming, education, therapy, and other rehabilitative services.”
Stacy Ford, president of the Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers’ Union, argued a lack of support from the Board of Supervisors had left juvenile facilities with a “lack of accountability.”
“A culture of impunity has taken hold, wherein youth are rarely held responsible for violent or disruptive behavior,” Ford said. “This has led to increasing chaos and safety risks within juvenile halls and camps.”
Officers are left to “confront dangerous and violent incidents with limited backup,” he said.
“Officers who attempt to manage these situations — sometimes through physical restraint — are often placed under investigation and may face disciplinary action, regardless of whether their actions were justified,” he said. “This creates a chilling effect, where officers are hesitant to intervene when necessary to protect the safety of other youth and staff.”
