California imposes a harsh penalty on teenage welfare recipients who have children without even warning them of the penalty, claim five welfare recipients who filed suit today over California's "family cap." The policy, intended to discourage welfare recipients from having more children, denies benefits to babies born to parents already receiving aid, but only if the parents received detailed notice about the policy before becoming pregnant.

Petitioners are represented by the ACLU of Southern California, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and the National Center for Youth Law. Clare Pastore of the Western Center, one of the attorneys for petitioners, explained that the basis of the lawsuit is the welfare department's failure to explain the rule to welfare recipients, especially teenagers. "The law says the family cap doesn't apply to any parent that wasn't warned about it ahead of time," said Pastore. "This is only fair'without advance warning, the family cap is just a senseless penalty on infants already starting out with a tough row to hoe." Pastore notes that the state provides no notice whatsoever that the family cap applies to teenagers who happen to be on welfare with their parents when they get pregnant. "The state welfare department doesn't have to apply this policy to teenage parents at all," notes attorney Martha Matthews of the National Center for Youth Law. "Applying it to them undermines their ability to finish high school and get off welfare. But if the department insists on applying the rule to teen parents, the least it must do under the law is warn them about it ahead of time."

ACLU-SC attorney Rocio Cordoba noted that California's Maximum Family Grant statute - part of a nationwide trend - is based on the mistaken belief that welfare recipients have additional children to get more aid. "The aid 'an extra $28 a week in most cases - doesn't even cover the cost of feeding, clothing and housing the new child," said Cordoba. "It's a myth that the welfare system 'rewards' women for having more children; the cold hard reality that the system punishes them for doing so. Denying subsistence benefits to these babies without even warning the parents in advance is irresponsible at best, cruel at worst."

The case, Nickols v. Saenz, was filed in San Francisco Superior Court today. The recipients ask the Court to enjoin the denial of aid to newborns unless and until proper, detailed notice is provided to all affected parents, including teenagers.

Today the ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Newman. Aaronson. Vanaman, in conjunction with State Administrator of the Compton Unified School District (CUSD) Dr. Randolph Ward, announced a permanent settlement implementing a comprehensive consent decree to ensure that the 29,000 students enrolled in the CUSD are no longer denied the habitable school facilities and fundamental learning tools and opportunities guaranteed them by the California Constitution. This historic settlement is the first to require by court order that the state of California provide students within a particular school district equal educational opportunity to other California students in grades K-12. It is the result of a lawsuit (Serna v. Eastin) filed against the State of California in Los Angeles Superior Court in July of 1997 by the ACLU-SC and Newman. Aaronson.Vanaman on behalf of all students within the Compton Unified School District.

Serna v. Eastin charged the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and other state education officials with failing to provide students an equal and adequate education and a safe learning environment following the state's takeover of the district in 1993. The suit was the first of its kind ever to be filed in California. Students in the CUSD had been denied the most basic educational tools available to public school students elsewhere in California, such as textbooks, certified teachers, and classroom homework policies. In addition, students were deprived of even minimally acceptable learning conditions as a consequence of unusable restrooms, boarded-up windows, broken lights and exposed electrical wiring.

The permanent settlement establishes a comprehensive system for addressing the educational and safety needs of Compton students.

Some of the terms of the settlement include:

-The provision of appropriate in-class and take-home textbooks in all core subjects to all students in the CUSD

-The presence of a certified teacher in every classroom on every school day

-The development of a plan to reduce district-wide employee absenteeism

-The implementation of a homework policy at every school site

-Assuring healthful and safe schools district-wide

-Regular community meetings to elicit parent feedback

-The neutral monitoring of the conditions in school facilities by an independent party, with clear evaluation standards for progress as to educational equity and facilities improvements

Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, praised the court-approved settlement as "adding the essential fourth R to the 3 R's of education - 'Responsibility.' For the first time in decades, the Compton school system receives passing marks when it comes to affording equal educational opportunity to its students." Rosenbaum credited the successful negotiation to the commitment of State Administrator Ward and State Superintendent Eastin and her staff.

Dr. Randolph Ward, state administrator of the CUSD, added that, "There are too many low performing, persistently failing school districts in this country. Six years ago, Compton used to be one of them. Today, you will find a different picture here. The court approved settlement has provided us with a useful tool in making needed changes to facilitate student success in the classroom. It took a lot of hard work for the Compton Unified School District to have reached this point in its recovery and there is still a lot of hard work ahead."

We have an imperial chief in Los Angeles. The refusal of Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks to work with the L.A. County District Attorney's office on the Rampart corruption scandal is another reason why it is essential to appoint an independent commission to examine the systemic problems in the LAPD. Parks is trying to grab more authority, rather than be held accountable for his actions and those of his department.

Los Angeles is faced with the biggest police scandal in its history, and police and prosecutors must work together. Cohesiveness is absolutely essential. Furthermore, Mayor Riordan is out of touch with the course of the investigation. Just yesterday, he publicly said that the D.A. and the chief were working together.

This is just one more instance of an across-the-board hostility to outside scrutiny of LAPD practices by our police chief. Community groups have long complained that when he does not like what they are saying, he cuts them out of the process. Now Parks has done the same thing to the district attorney's office. Imperial policing must end, and it must end immediately.