San Diego County Juvenile Detention Abuse: More Former Youth Sue

Image: Official seal of San Diego County via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.

Eight former residents of San Diego County juvenile detention facilities have filed a lawsuit alleging that guards and other county employees sexually abused them while they were minors, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported, per The Spokesman-Review.

The case adds eight plaintiffs to a much larger wave of litigation involving former residents of county juvenile halls, temporary shelters, foster-care facilities and other youth programs.

San Diego County’s Probation Department and Department of Child and Family Well-Being are already defending similar claims brought by hundreds of former residents.

County officials declined to comment on the new allegations, citing a policy against discussing active litigation outside court.

New Lawsuit Moves to San Diego Federal Court

The lawsuit was initially filed in San Diego Superior Court before the County Counsel’s Office successfully moved it to federal court.

The complaint alleges that San Diego County failed to protect children placed in its custody and disregarded warning signs and reports involving employee misconduct.

The plaintiffs argue that sexual abuse in detention facilities is a human-rights issue and that government agencies responsible for confined youth cannot ignore allegations involving staff members.

Which San Diego County Facilities Are Named?

The latest lawsuit includes allegations involving facilities that have appeared repeatedly in prior litigation, including:

• Kearny Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility
• East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility
• Camp Barrett, a now-closed youth camp in East San Diego County
• Polinsky Children’s Center

Prior lawsuits have also named other juvenile detention, rehabilitation and foster-care facilities operated or overseen by San Diego County.

The claims generally involve alleged misconduct by probation officers, guards, counselors or other employees entrusted with supervising children in county custody.

Plaintiffs Allege Abuse Beginning at Young Ages

The new complaint alleges that some plaintiffs were children or young teenagers when the misconduct began.

One plaintiff claims that two officers abused her over approximately two years while she was detained at the Kearny Mesa facility. She alleges that she reported what happened to a staff member in 2004 but that her account was disregarded.

Other plaintiffs allege serious sexual misconduct by employees and say they continue to experience emotional and psychological harm.

Some of the former residents were reportedly as young as 11 when the alleged abuse occurred.

Lawsuits Accuse San Diego County of Institutional Failures

The plaintiffs accuse San Diego County of failing to properly hire, train, supervise and discipline employees working with vulnerable children.

Institutional sexual-abuse lawsuits may seek to determine whether administrators:

• Received earlier complaints about an employee
• Failed to investigate reports appropriately
• Allowed an accused employee continued access to children
• Discouraged residents from reporting misconduct
• Maintained policies that made abuse easier to conceal
• Failed to provide adequate supervision inside county facilities

These cases can be especially difficult to investigate when the alleged conduct occurred decades ago. Records may be incomplete, witnesses may be difficult to locate and facilities may have closed or changed names.

Those challenges do not necessarily prevent a survivor from pursuing a claim, particularly when multiple former residents describe similar institutional failures.

California Law Led to a Surge in Childhood Abuse Claims

Much of the current litigation against California schools, counties and other public agencies followed the passage of Assembly Bill 218 in 2019.

The law extended the general civil filing period for many childhood sexual-assault claims until the survivor turns 40, or within five years of discovering that an adult psychological injury was caused by the childhood abuse, whichever is later. It also created a three-year revival window, which ran from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2022, for many claims that had previously expired.

That temporary revival window has closed. However, some survivors may still have timely claims under California’s extended filing rules, depending on their age, when the alleged abuse occurred and when they connected the abuse to later harm.

For childhood sexual abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024, California has eliminated the civil statute of limitations. Different rules can apply to earlier incidents, claims against Public Agencies Say the Cases Are Straining Budgets and Insurance

California school districts, counties and other government agencies say the surge in historical abuse litigation has caused insurance premiums and settlement costs to increase sharply.

A state-commissioned fiscal report concluded that AB 218 eliminated several former claim requirements and expanded or effectively removed filing deadlines for certain childhood sexual-assault claims against public entities.

Some public agencies argue that decades-old allegations are difficult to defend because employees have retired or died and important records may no longer exist. They have also raised concerns that settlements may have to be paid partly from general funds when insurance coverage is unavailable or insufficient.

Survivors and their attorneys counter that institutions should not avoid accountability simply because abuse remained hidden or survivors were unable to come forward when they were younger.

More San Diego County Claims May Follow

The eight-plaintiff lawsuit joins hundreds of other claims involving San Diego County youth facilities, and additional former residents may still come forward.

Whether a person can file a lawsuit depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including:

• The survivor’s current age
• When and where the alleged abuse occurred
• Whether a government claim was previously submitted
• Whether the case was preserved during California’s revival window
• Whether delayed-discovery rules apply
• Which county department or institution operated the facility

A survivor does not necessarily need to know an employee’s full name or possess decades-old institutional records before requesting a legal evaluation. Attorneys handling institutional-abuse cases can investigate employment files, facility records, prior complaints and related lawsuits.