Boarding School Closes Although Charges of Abuse Unsubstantiated

By TOM GORMAN

March 21, 1986 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

VALLEY CENTER — A private Christian boarding school here has closed down for want of a state license to operate, even though an investigation that brought public attention to the school last week did not substantiate allegations of physical abuse, authorities said Thursday.

State licensing officials said that Ray Swan, owner and operator of the Rainbow Ranch, has agreed to close his school in the wake of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department investigation, prompted by complaints by two youths at the ranch who ran away and complained that they were treated too harshly.

“He (Swan) said he wouldn’t take any more kids in residence until and unless he has a license,” said Paul Solosky, a licensing officer for the community care branch of the state Department of Social Services.

And the local fire marshal said Thursday that, as it now stands, the facility would not meet the fire safety requirements for a state license.

“The site would not receive Fire Department approval for licensing in its current condition,” said Capt. Ken Toy of the California Department of Forestry, who is assigned to the Valley Center Fire Protection District.

A cursory investigation showed the ranch school had deficiencies in electrical wiring, fire exits, structure and perhaps in sprinklers and fire alarm equipment, Toy said.

Swan, who began operating the school about five months ago, declined to comment Thursday. In an interview in The Times last week, he said: “This is a Christian boarding school. Our mission is to take kids who have problems at home. We give them a home, discipline, love and an education.”

Solosky said his state licensing office was not even aware of the school’s existence until the Sheriff’s Department opened its investigation.

In the wake of the complaints of harsh discipline being meted out by Swan, 11 of the boys were taken from the school, interviewed by the Child Protective Services office of the county Department of Social Services and turned over to their parents.

Some of those boys told authorities they wanted to be returned to the school, according to Deputy Dist. Atty. Charles Bell, who will decide--perhaps by today--whether the investigation should be dropped for lack of a case.

Bell noted that none of the students’ parents have complained to his office about the methods in which Swan disciplined his charges--including the use of “the hole,” a six-foot-by-six-foot windowless plywood enclosure for boys who refused to behave.

One student said that two malcontents who complained first to authorities and then to The Times about how they were treated were exaggerating the degree of the discipline, Bell said.

There were no complaints of corporal punishment, and the central issue in the investigation was the use of the “hole,” Bell said.

He said boys told investigators that they were allowed to leave the enclosure to go to the bathroom and to eat. Some said they were given pillows and blankets, and at least one said he was allowed to leave the small room to go to the chapel for prayer. There was good air circulation in the enclosure, another added.

Two complained that “the government was unfair in closing the camp,” Bell said. “Neither boy felt the punishment ever got out of hand, and both said they felt they made great moral and spiritual improvements while at the school.”

Another boy, according to Bell, said, “I’ve been in the hole five times. It’s due to my cussing and not obeying. You’re given a pillow and a blanket. The meals were adequate.”

Another boy said one of his peers was handcuffed but “it was appropriate because he was acting bad, real bad. He offended everyone by yelling and cussing and hitting his hands against the wall.”

Bell said the boys made their statements to investigators out of Swan’s presence.

According to Solosky, Swan said he had not been certified by the state Department of Education to operate a school, “so that meant he would have to have a license from us instead. But he didn’t have one.”

The facility would require a “group home” license from the state because the boys were receiving care and supervision at the ranch, Solosky said.

“He was rather matter-of-fact about our conclusions. He seemed accepting,” Solosky said.