LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has announced the settlement of a lawsuit alleging inadequate mental health services for dependent children in Los Angeles County's child-welfare system.

A coalition of public interest groups originally filed the suit in July 2002. They included the Western Center on Law and Poverty, Center for Law In the Public Interest, the Bazalon Center for Mental Health Law, the Youth Law Center, Protection & Advocacy, Inc., the law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

The suit sought to ensure delivery of appropriate mental health services for children currently under, or at risk of being placed under, the jurisdiction of the County's Department of Children and Family Services. Nationwide, an estimated 60-85 percent of children in foster care have significant mental health problems.

"Looking ahead, we hope that every single child who ever finds himself in a position to be a client of Los Angeles County will be benefitted by this agreement," said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

"The overarching philosophy of this agreement may be simply stated: the role of the government is to preserve families, not replace them; that children belong in families, not institutions," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director with the ACLU of Southern California. "This agreement was reached in the spirit of holding hands, not pointing fingers."

"This agreement is simply the beginning," said Miriam Krinsky, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles. "We all now need to work together to secure a similar positive commitment from our State."

The State of California, also named as a defendant in the suit, has not settled with the plaintiffs.

"This was really an example of the different parties coming together to do what was best for the children in the system," said Robert Newman, staff attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. "Almost immediately after the suit was filed, the County came to the negotiation table eager to work something out rather than dragging it out in litigation. Everyone involved recognized that this was an important chance to make a change in the lives of the thousands of foster children in Los Angeles."

The settlement outlines a set of objectives that the County has agreed to meet on behalf of the roughly 50,000 foster children in it's care, including:

Promptly administering individualized mental health services to foster children in either their own home, a family setting or the most homelike setting appropriate to their needs;

Striving to provide stability in the placement of foster children, whenever possible, since multiple placements are harmful to children and disruptive of family contact, mental health treatment and the provision of other critical services;

Ensuring that the care and services foster children receive are consistent with good child welfare and mental health practice and requirements of federal and state law.

In order to fulfill the objectives outlined in the settlement, the County will agree to:

-- Expand intensive, family-based "Wraparound Services" that utilize flexible funding to meet the individual needs of children and families;

-- Enhance permanency planning, increase placement stability and provide more individualized, community-based emergency and other foster care services;

-- Surrender its license for MacLaren Children's Center and will no longer operate the facility for the residential care of children and youth under the age of eighteen;

-- Immediately address the service and permanence needs of the five plaintiffs named in the lawsuit.

Also as part of the settlement, an Advisory Panel of experts in the child welfare field will monitor the County's compliance and implementation of reforms.

"The expert panel's role is to ensure that children will be afforded placement stability to provide the opportunity to form real emotional attachments that all children need, and to avoid being bounced from one inappropriate placement to another," said Lin Min King, staff attorney at the Center for Law In the Public Interest. "MacLaren Children's Center, a shelter that has been used to warehouse children for years, has been closed as a result of this lawsuit. But more importantly, children with emotional and behavioral impairments will be provided services early on to reduce the time they are in foster care, and more individualized, community-based emergency services will be made available to children."

"This settlement exemplifies how dedicated advocates and responsible public officials can--but all too often don't--form a partnership for needed system reform," said Ira Burnim, legal director with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. "Its successful implementation will transform a system that has turned a blind eye to thousands of children with disabilities into one that offers these youngsters the help they need to live with their families, stay in school and have the opportunity to grow up as healthy and independent adults."

LOS ANGELES - In a press conference today, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California announced the filing of a lawsuit to enjoin the closure of Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center and the reduction of close to 100 beds at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center.

"The Board of Supervisors' recent vote to close Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center and reduce the number of hospital beds at the County's major trauma care provider, LAC-USC Medical Center, both endangers these patients' lives and violates their rights under state law," said Yolanda Vera, staff attorney with Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles. "Even before these cuts, the County's facilities were operating far beyond capacity, with severely ill patients often waiting for months or even years for treatment."

In the Fall of 2002, the County Board of Supervisors eliminated approximately one half million clinic visits per year for poor persons when it closed eleven health centers and cut vital services provided by free and low cost clinics. Community organizations and public interest groups submitted over 2,500 pages of testimony, letters, studies and reports to the County showing the dramatic impact the cuts would have on the quality of medical care in Los Angeles County. Then, in January of 2003, the Board announced even further reductions, voting to close Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center and to reduce the number of hospital beds at County's largest trauma care provider, LA County-USC Medical Center.

"Health care is the most fundamental of all the County's obligations," said Sandra Robinson, spokesperson with the Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation. "It is not a question of politics or ideology or even economics, it's a question of suffering - and how to end suffering. The medical needs of our community will not go away just because the services are cut."

Just days after voting to make these closures, the County received $250 million dollars in state and federal relief - $100 million more than it had expected. This effectively gave the County a surplus through the 2005/2006 fiscal year.

"I believe it is shortsighted and misguided to cut access to health care for the working poor and uninsured because the resulting affect of such cuts will affect everyone who lives in Los Angeles," said Dr. Daniel Higgins, Director of Emergency Medical Services at St. Francis Medical Center, a private non-profit hospital in Lynwood. "The impact of the Board's recent decision to close various County health facilities is already readily evident, endangering everyone's health care, regardless of economic status."

Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center is the largest safety net provider in one of the most densely populated areas of the County. County-USC serves close to 50,000 inpatients and 750,000 outpatients a year.

Rancho Los Amigos is recognized as one of the best rehabilitation hospitals in the country. The hospital is currently a 207 bed facility with staff specializing in rehabilitation and the acute needs of patients with chronic diseases.

"I went to Rancho Los Amigos with the hope that they could help me learn how to walk again," said Garry Harris, 47, who was the victim of a drive-by shooting that left him paralyzed. "Eventually with the help of the staff I was able to get some mobility with crutches. I no longer have to use a wheelchair."

"For too many years now, Los Angeles County's health care system has been crisis driven, culminating in these cuts," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the ACLU of Southern California. "Because no countywide system for the delivery of health care can function without these services, the reductions will only make true reform more difficult. As it stands, two of the largest facilities - LAC-USC and MLK - do not even accept emergency patients 75% and 80% of the time respectively. Closing another 100 beds at County-USC is like trying to get out of a hole by digging deeper."

"I guess to most people who haven't used the services there at Rancho, it just seems like any other hospital or clinic," said Garry Harris, who is also a plaintiff in the suit. "But the fact is that Rancho is unique. I don't know where else I could have got the type of therapy that they provided and I don't know where I'll go if it closes down."

LOS ANGELES - In two separate rulings today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the sentences of two non-violent repeat offenders who were sentenced to unusually long prison terms for petty theft offenses.

"Today's ruling makes clear that California voters, rather than our politicians or courts, will have to take responsibility for fixing our Three Strikes law, which is the broadest and harshest in the nation. Californians never intended to give petty, non-violent offenders the same sentences we apply to people who commit murder, rape, and other violent crimes," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU/SC.

"Our Three Strikes law has too many unintended consequences: it's profoundly unjust; it's costing us a fortune, and it's tearing families and communities apart," said Ripston. "Voters are beginning to understand what an unjust and wasteful law this is."

In fact, a public opinion poll conducted in 2002 by the firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates on behalf of Families to Amend California's Three Strikes (FACTS) found that 65% of likely general election voters in California would favor amending the three strikes law so that it applies only in cases of violent or serious felonies such as rape, robbery or murder.

The ACLU of Southern California is working closely with FACTS, Human Rights Watch, and other groups to fight for Three Strikes reform at the ballot box. California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg has also introduced legislation, AB 112, that would place on the ballot an initiative to limit the application of the three strikes law to violent offenders.

The American Civil Liberties Union was co-counsel in one of the two cases, California v. Andrade. Andrade was convicted of stealing $154 worth of videotapes and is currently serving a 50 year sentence. California's three strikes law was first enacted in 1994.